I'm surprised no one has called you a communist yet. I can't seem to bring up my views here (seems that they're similar to yours) without some idiot letting his Russian-phobia lose on me. (Note: I != Communist)
"This can be applied to everything; communism has nicely shown that getting rid of this in a large scale leads to horrid problems. Artists need to eat as well, if making art (or software or whatever) doesn't provide them with the money they need they'll simply find a different job."
I'm not condoning communism. This is libertarianism, and the fact that you are unable to discern the difference speaks volumes about you ignorance.
And this isn't about food, or housing, or any other material items you want to say its about. I stated that IDEAS should be free to redistribute. I thought I clearly stated that stealing was wrong, and that I didn't advocate that ("Taking a CD from a shop is stealing. That CD comes at the cost of someone else.") but it seems you didn't quite get it.
Music isn't a material item like a sandwich is. There's a big difference here. The music can be remembered by anyone and reproduced by them anywhere, but intellectual property rights would deny us (and our computers) the right to remember music. This a law that forces you to forget what you have heard, so that someone can charge you for it again. And, as for the "artists need an income too" bitch I hear so often, would it not be possible for them to earn their keep from performance? Or don't artists do that anymore?
Either way, it is their resposibility to work out how they can earn a living without violating rights, not mine, though I often gladly play to hear live music, and to visit the cinema,
"At the risk of rephrasing what I already said, the fact that BSD code exists at all indicates that the "if all enhancements were closed" scenario is very unlikely to occur. If people are motivated to create BSD code in the first place knowing that some enhancements will be closed, then they won't mind making enhancements under the same conditions."
This is only really because of a general lack of interest in developing code for Free OS's. You're starting to have a problem: look at how much Apple leach from you. The really don't release enough of their sourcecode, and AFAIK, Sun had been ripping you off for years, until fairly recently.
"Well, everyone benefits except for the people who own the copyright - you've run roughshod over them. They don't count, though, they only created the entertainment you believe should be free. Fuck them!"
They have benefited from the world that humanity has created for them, and then sold us back the profits of our own creation.
If the mother who had taught her son to talk had claimed intellectual property rights over her lesson, that child would be legally unable to speak without permission from the mother. This is essentially the same situation the world is in with intellectual property.
I have learnt how to play a song by listening to its sound - how can you deprive me of the freedom to reproduce it (even to reproduce it for a profit)? I have only listened and learnt from someone who has listened and learnt from someone else.
Taking a CD from a shop is stealing. That CD comes at the cost of someone else. But how can you deny people the right to share the result of playing that CD with their friends (or perhaps with whoever they wish to make a copy for)? Are you going to say that you own all the soundwaves that compact disc produces? Are you going to tell me that the 1's and 0's that are represented on the underside of it are yours to keep, even once the disc is mine? This is preposterous.
This app shows why platform-optimized code will _always_ beat generic XP frameworks (Java/Python).
Explain to me why no one has written operating systems in assembly for 30 year then. You've shown why a C++ program will beat a script and what is essentially a compiled script.
Torrent, being written in C++, shouldn't use platform-optimised methods. If it did, it would simply show that their code is of poor quality (not that we have any way of checking-it's closed source). Java and python clients have no optimisations in themselves, only in the libraries and interpretters you use for them.
A C++ client must be optimised at build time, unless you're in the habit of making stupid assumptions about what your target cpu is going to be. C++ can only be optimised at build time (ie, by using gcc CXXFLAGS), and you are using a binary of uTorrent, not your own build. Closed source programs cannot be optimised.
Mod this idiot down. "Which leads to the third laughable reason"
You're right. That reason IS laughable. In fact all of your reasons are.
Private trackers were designed to keep jackasses like you out in the cold. You'll soon find that many of them begin to deny connections to unidentified clients.
If you knew shit about shit, you'd know that the essential effect of both DHT networks is the same, they're just used by different clients
Private trackers aren't the only ones who keep stats on you, moron. Almost every website on the internet does to some extent, so every time you do a search for questionable content you've been logged. Private trackers are intended so that they are able to reward good deeds (ie seeding) and punish people who damage the network by not doing enough to help sustain the community.
And yes, I am making a moral case for using bittorrent. I don't believe in copyright, or intellectual property of any kind, and I'm sure a number of people share this view. Bittorrent helps everyone, by giving them whatever infomation they want-unregulated by others. You benefit from it, and so does everyone else.
"The philosphical difference between the two licenses is that the those who use the GPL want to control the destiny of other people's work if it's derived from theirs, while those who favor the BSD believe that their code is a gift to be used without strings attached."
Putting it this way doesn't really describe the reasons for the difference. The GPL is specifically designed to protect the code it licences (in particular, to sustain the communities that create much of the Free Software we use) - the BSD makes no provision for this (though, like i said, this can be good too).
As for your argument about the BSD license, BSD code is available only because there are people who neither believe in the GPL or in making all their changes proprietary. So as usual, an argument starting with "if everyone" isn't valid in a practical sense.
Well, if everyone decided to exploit the BSD code (ie, if all enchancements were closed), then the community would die. There isn't really much question of that. I'm of the opinion that we may be heading for an age were this starts to happen. Apple, in particular are a big culprit of this; they've used BSD code, but haven't really released all of their stuff under the GPL.
this would allow mutliple companies to have a monopoly in the same market.
I didn't quite clarify on this in the originial post. See here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174539&cid=145 33864 "in the US, monopolies are not even illegal, what is illegal is unfairly leveraging a monopoly to avoid competition.
I'm fairly sure that part of the law is fairly similar here. There are a couple of other things however, for example; its difficult to buyout/merge other companies with yourself when it would increase you market share if you are a monopoly (or if it would make you into a monopoly)
I myself use a creative mp3 player, and I know plenty of people who use other players as well, none of us felt for a second like we had no other options. they are certainly leveraging fairplay, but they don't quite have the market share to make it a serious problem.
There is some vendor-lockout with iTunes, and that would probably be seen as limiting the customers choice with a monopolistic advantage (I think we're still awaiting a a piece of precedent on this issue).
Well, it has to be that one one company has more than a 20% stake (Apple probably falls into this catagory anyway, seeing as they have 74%, and i doubt more than one company holds more than 20% of the remaining 26%). Example: if there are two companies with 20% stakes, then that would be considered an oligopoly. Again, there's a chance that some of this could be slightly wrong, though I'm fairly sure it's close to correct (IANAL).
You also ought to consider that a company with a larger-than-20% market share does have a disproportionate ammount of control over the market.
"Last time I was in the store, there were quite a few other mp3 players on the store shelves. I cannot, for example, choose another cable company if I can't install a dish. Now -thats- a monopoly."
Last time I was reading Statute Law, uncited definitions didn't mean shit. For that matter, dictionaries only come into play when a law's wording is seen as unclear, and even then, judical policy is to use the Oxford dictionary of the year the law was passed.
Monopolies are declared under law, not under your quotation marks.
The same is true of any hardware. Any hardware. Unless you wanna encase it in concrete, people will pirate it - they know the rewards (both monetary and social) are there.
Apple does not have a near-monopoly on the mp3 player market.
Yes they do. iPods have something like 74% of the market in the US (that figure is from July last year, and I'll bet it's even higher now). How in gods name can you not see that that is a monopoly?
Here in the UK, a monopoly is defined as a 20% market share (and iPod has a similar market share). That makes the iPod a monopoly almost 4 times over. The iPod is CLEARLY a monopoly.
"This is the biggest deception of the "Free" software movement, that somehow BSD code can be made unavailable by having it incorporated into closed software.
The BSD code is still available, but any improvements that were made in the closed-software are not available to the general public. Then, that closed-source software could take all the improvements made in the BSD software, and then improve on those changes, and then release that. When they do this, only the company profits, and the general public don't.
When you release a closed-source program for BSD, you are relying on all the code that *BSD has created, while giving nothing back in return.
If everyone thought it was better to release all their changes under the closed-source method, then *BSD would never advance, and we'd simply have a series of closed-source programs to run on BSD. Would you say this would be a good situtation?
If you want to say that its ok to allow people to use Free Software and then release their changes under a closed-source licence, then we are just not going to agree here. I think that is a bad idea. You obviously don't.
"You should probably read a newspaper every few years, you'll be amazed at the interesting things that happen in the world!"
If you can come up with a link to a reasonable news source that would support this claim, I'd be interested to read it. One that references the male prostitute in question as a fact rather than speculation?
I would certainly it, if flash were Free Software (and further more, available on the amd64 platform), and if someone showed my a good use of flash. As it is, they're haven't been any good uses...yet. When I am told of some, I will certainly start using it.
You say this almost as if someone should care who uses linux-based free operating systems. People can use if it they want, they DO NOT have to use it. I couldn't give a rats arse about Hollywood production studios using this operating system.
Of course, I would prefer if everyone used some kind of Free/Open Source operating system, but there is no way in hell I care a damn whether they use it or not. I certainly not going to change my ideals to encourage people to use this operating system. Hell, if we're gonna go that way, why not just close the source off and sell the home edition for ~$200?
If you just gonna advocate use of an operating system, and not the additional ideals that come with it, then that makes you no better than the videogame-crazed 11 year olds who will fight each other tooth and nail over whether Playstation is better than Nintendo.
If the truth seeker puts it on their website, it MUST be true!
This from a website whose high quality journalism includes "Photos of Babies Deformed at Birth as a Result of Depleted Uranium (DU) 2003" and "Prison Planet: Control Grid: The Prison Without Bars 1984 was a picnic compared to modern day leviathan surveillance cage More" on their front page.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised no one has called you a communist yet. I can't seem to bring up my views here (seems that they're similar to yours) without some idiot letting his Russian-phobia lose on me. (Note: I != Communist)
"This can be applied to everything; communism has nicely shown that getting rid of this in a large scale leads to horrid problems. Artists need to eat as well, if making art (or software or whatever) doesn't provide them with the money they need they'll simply find a different job."
I'm not condoning communism. This is libertarianism, and the fact that you are unable to discern the difference speaks volumes about you ignorance.
And this isn't about food, or housing, or any other material items you want to say its about. I stated that IDEAS should be free to redistribute. I thought I clearly stated that stealing was wrong, and that I didn't advocate that ("Taking a CD from a shop is stealing. That CD comes at the cost of someone else.") but it seems you didn't quite get it.
Music isn't a material item like a sandwich is. There's a big difference here. The music can be remembered by anyone and reproduced by them anywhere, but intellectual property rights would deny us (and our computers) the right to remember music. This a law that forces you to forget what you have heard, so that someone can charge you for it again. And, as for the "artists need an income too" bitch I hear so often, would it not be possible for them to earn their keep from performance? Or don't artists do that anymore?
Either way, it is their resposibility to work out how they can earn a living without violating rights, not mine, though I often gladly play to hear live music, and to visit the cinema,
"At the risk of rephrasing what I already said, the fact that BSD code exists at all indicates that the "if all enhancements were closed" scenario is very unlikely to occur. If people are motivated to create BSD code in the first place knowing that some enhancements will be closed, then they won't mind making enhancements under the same conditions."
This is only really because of a general lack of interest in developing code for Free OS's. You're starting to have a problem: look at how much Apple leach from you. The really don't release enough of their sourcecode, and AFAIK, Sun had been ripping you off for years, until fairly recently.
"Well, everyone benefits except for the people who own the copyright - you've run roughshod over them. They don't count, though, they only created the entertainment you believe should be free. Fuck them!"
They have benefited from the world that humanity has created for them, and then sold us back the profits of our own creation.
If the mother who had taught her son to talk had claimed intellectual property rights over her lesson, that child would be legally unable to speak without permission from the mother. This is essentially the same situation the world is in with intellectual property.
I have learnt how to play a song by listening to its sound - how can you deprive me of the freedom to reproduce it (even to reproduce it for a profit)? I have only listened and learnt from someone who has listened and learnt from someone else.
Taking a CD from a shop is stealing. That CD comes at the cost of someone else. But how can you deny people the right to share the result of playing that CD with their friends (or perhaps with whoever they wish to make a copy for)? Are you going to say that you own all the soundwaves that compact disc produces? Are you going to tell me that the 1's and 0's that are represented on the underside of it are yours to keep, even once the disc is mine? This is preposterous.
This app shows why platform-optimized code will _always_ beat generic XP frameworks (Java/Python).
Explain to me why no one has written operating systems in assembly for 30 year then. You've shown why a C++ program will beat a script and what is essentially a compiled script.
Torrent, being written in C++, shouldn't use platform-optimised methods. If it did, it would simply show that their code is of poor quality (not that we have any way of checking-it's closed source). Java and python clients have no optimisations in themselves, only in the libraries and interpretters you use for them.
A C++ client must be optimised at build time, unless you're in the habit of making stupid assumptions about what your target cpu is going to be. C++ can only be optimised at build time (ie, by using gcc CXXFLAGS), and you are using a binary of uTorrent, not your own build. Closed source programs cannot be optimised.
Agreed. It's all I use.
"Which leads to the third laughable reason"
You're right. That reason IS laughable. In fact all of your reasons are.
And yes, I am making a moral case for using bittorrent. I don't believe in copyright, or intellectual property of any kind, and I'm sure a number of people share this view. Bittorrent helps everyone, by giving them whatever infomation they want-unregulated by others. You benefit from it, and so does everyone else.
"If they eventually cave in and supply identifiable information (ip addresses and search histories) then they have lost at least one customer.
I'm sure you'll be missed.
"The philosphical difference between the two licenses is that the those who use the GPL want to control the destiny of other people's work if it's derived from theirs, while those who favor the BSD believe that their code is a gift to be used without strings attached."
Putting it this way doesn't really describe the reasons for the difference. The GPL is specifically designed to protect the code it licences (in particular, to sustain the communities that create much of the Free Software we use) - the BSD makes no provision for this (though, like i said, this can be good too).
As for your argument about the BSD license, BSD code is available only because there are people who neither believe in the GPL or in making all their changes proprietary. So as usual, an argument starting with "if everyone" isn't valid in a practical sense.
Well, if everyone decided to exploit the BSD code (ie, if all enchancements were closed), then the community would die. There isn't really much question of that. I'm of the opinion that we may be heading for an age were this starts to happen. Apple, in particular are a big culprit of this; they've used BSD code, but haven't really released all of their stuff under the GPL.
I, for one, welcome our new internet-meme overlords.
this would allow mutliple companies to have a monopoly in the same market.5 33864
I didn't quite clarify on this in the originial post. See here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174539&cid=14
"in the US, monopolies are not even illegal, what is illegal is unfairly leveraging a monopoly to avoid competition.
I'm fairly sure that part of the law is fairly similar here. There are a couple of other things however, for example; its difficult to buyout/merge other companies with yourself when it would increase you market share if you are a monopoly (or if it would make you into a monopoly)
I myself use a creative mp3 player, and I know plenty of people who use other players as well, none of us felt for a second like we had no other options. they are certainly leveraging fairplay, but they don't quite have the market share to make it a serious problem.
There is some vendor-lockout with iTunes, and that would probably be seen as limiting the customers choice with a monopolistic advantage (I think we're still awaiting a a piece of precedent on this issue).
Well, it has to be that one one company has more than a 20% stake (Apple probably falls into this catagory anyway, seeing as they have 74%, and i doubt more than one company holds more than 20% of the remaining 26%). Example: if there are two companies with 20% stakes, then that would be considered an oligopoly. Again, there's a chance that some of this could be slightly wrong, though I'm fairly sure it's close to correct (IANAL).
You also ought to consider that a company with a larger-than-20% market share does have a disproportionate ammount of control over the market.
"Last time I was in the store, there were quite a few other mp3 players on the store shelves. I cannot, for example, choose another cable company if I can't install a dish. Now -thats- a monopoly."
Last time I was reading Statute Law, uncited definitions didn't mean shit. For that matter, dictionaries only come into play when a law's wording is seen as unclear, and even then, judical policy is to use the Oxford dictionary of the year the law was passed.
Monopolies are declared under law, not under your quotation marks.
(bad spelling.../. should warn for spelling error)
For two reasons:
1) "propietary" is spelt "proprietary"
2) "Inerty" isn't a word, I believe you mean "inertia"
The same is true of any hardware. Any hardware. Unless you wanna encase it in concrete, people will pirate it - they know the rewards (both monetary and social) are there.
Apple does not have a near-monopoly on the mp3 player market.
Yes they do. iPods have something like 74% of the market in the US (that figure is from July last year, and I'll bet it's even higher now). How in gods name can you not see that that is a monopoly?
Here in the UK, a monopoly is defined as a 20% market share (and iPod has a similar market share). That makes the iPod a monopoly almost 4 times over. The iPod is CLEARLY a monopoly.
You can't prove anything.
Which one is your favourite? I'm willing to try this out.
"This is the biggest deception of the "Free" software movement, that somehow BSD code can be made unavailable by having it incorporated into closed software.
The BSD code is still available, but any improvements that were made in the closed-software are not available to the general public. Then, that closed-source software could take all the improvements made in the BSD software, and then improve on those changes, and then release that. When they do this, only the company profits, and the general public don't.
When you release a closed-source program for BSD, you are relying on all the code that *BSD has created, while giving nothing back in return.
If everyone thought it was better to release all their changes under the closed-source method, then *BSD would never advance, and we'd simply have a series of closed-source programs to run on BSD. Would you say this would be a good situtation?
If you want to say that its ok to allow people to use Free Software and then release their changes under a closed-source licence, then we are just not going to agree here. I think that is a bad idea. You obviously don't.
"You should probably read a newspaper every few years, you'll be amazed at the interesting things that happen in the world!"
If you can come up with a link to a reasonable news source that would support this claim, I'd be interested to read it. One that references the male prostitute in question as a fact rather than speculation?
I would certainly it, if flash were Free Software (and further more, available on the amd64 platform), and if someone showed my a good use of flash. As it is, they're haven't been any good uses...yet. When I am told of some, I will certainly start using it.
"Then it's goodbye, Linux."
You say this almost as if someone should care who uses linux-based free operating systems. People can use if it they want, they DO NOT have to use it. I couldn't give a rats arse about Hollywood production studios using this operating system.
Of course, I would prefer if everyone used some kind of Free/Open Source operating system, but there is no way in hell I care a damn whether they use it or not. I certainly not going to change my ideals to encourage people to use this operating system. Hell, if we're gonna go that way, why not just close the source off and sell the home edition for ~$200?
If you just gonna advocate use of an operating system, and not the additional ideals that come with it, then that makes you no better than the videogame-crazed 11 year olds who will fight each other tooth and nail over whether Playstation is better than Nintendo.
Im writing this down.
If the truth seeker puts it on their website, it MUST be true!
This from a website whose high quality journalism includes "Photos of Babies Deformed at Birth as a Result of Depleted Uranium (DU) 2003" and "Prison Planet: Control Grid: The Prison Without Bars 1984 was a picnic compared to modern day leviathan surveillance cage More" on their front page.
Yeah, whatever.
You heard it here first.