Collectively, yes they are a cartel (an oligopoly technically). Individually, however, they in fact have monopolies on individual ideas and creative works, and most people are not familiar with 'oligopoly'.
So, this is the reason that I like to use the term monopoly. It is the singleness of it. A monopoly will never turn on itself, while (for example) OPEC has had members undercut or (more often) overproduce on a regular basis. There are also countries that don't join OPEC, and they are not only able to thrive they also are able to apply pressure to ensure that OPEC can't exercise monopoly control.
So I think it's important to change the term Intellectual Property for one that is more correct: Intellectual Monopoly. Part of accomplishing this is to ensure that at every possible legitimate* place the term monopoly is used to describe how the members of an oligopoly act. I think this helps bring it to focus for people, as (most?) people associate "monopoly" with "bad" thanks to the local telephone and cable companies...
It's all part of taking back the language from those that sell 'restrictions' as 'rights', 'ideas' as 'property' and 'fair-play' as 'fair', 'plays-for-sure' as somehow to my benefit (shouldn't that be true by default?).
Ultimately, it's still wrong, simply because if you are benefiting from somebody else's work without their permission and without compensating them fairly, you're using them in a morally negative way.
So it's wrong to watch TV but not the commercials?
So it's wrong to lend a DVD or a book to a friend?
So it's wrong to read a book at the library?
So it's wrong to play a CD on my stereo when an 'unlicensed' person is in the house?
So it's wrong to describe a TV episode to someone else?
In every day life we benefit from many others, most of whom we never meet, nor compensate in any way. None of these people ever granted permission to us. It's a very slippery slope when you assume that the 'creator' has infinte rights over 'ideas': soon a corporation will own you in every way possible.
It's interesting to note that one of the biggest proponents of copyright (Disney) has based some of it's biggest hits on stories from the public domain (they didn't create Snow White!) yet they fight to keep their simple mouse from being used by others - ever!
Even though this comment always gets modded down, I'm going to say it anyways: If you don't want people to share in your ideas, don't share them. Problem solved.
...and to the monopolists with mod points to burn: You know as well as I do that you can no more halt human creativity than we can halt procreation. It's a part of who we are. We were creative long before copyright, and we will be creative long after it's gone. What you're fighting for is your own profits, not the financial viability of artists. Killing copyright and patents won't hurt the creators: You're already not paying them. It will hurt the real leeches and parasites on this process: the gatekeepers and middlemen. Those who artificially increase prices, extract monopoly profits, hinder development, repress artists and keep the artists seperated from humanity by keeping art under lock and key; demanding a toll and suing those that won't comply.
As a media exec, it's my job to stay on the cutting edge, and come up with new and innovative ways to get content out to my subscribers.
My first big idea of 2006? Peer to Peer networks! I'll call them p2p for short, I'm sure they will be a big success. We could charge a fee for encumbered media that only works the way we want, and expect our customers to help distribute to boot.... errr, what? p2p exists and people use it freely already to obtain unencumbered media. damn! I thought I was onto a brand new idea here.
ok; my next big idea is to record TV shows for people, and store them on my server. Then people can tell me what they want recorded and watch it later. I'm sure this one will fly!...errr, what? people have been recording TV just fine without me for more than 20yrs? and they've been recording them digitially using a PVR for the better half of a decade?
dammit! why does the market always beat me to the punch?? there must be some way I can extort more money out of people for useless services.
...that's why I specified that we are judging not just the code, but the coder. We tend to have less respect for the coder that writes messy code.
Does this stem from a practical reason? Sure, but that's not the point. The point is that we've judged the quality of the code based on the appearance of the code.
By the same token, people are judged by their appearance.
You don't have to like it or agree with it, but it is reality.
Wear a bathing suit to work, or a 3-piece suit to the beach and people will look at you funny... the particular discussion was about selling linux to the corporate environment, and that calls for a suit.
That should take care of Diebold repair people, poll workers, and voters, leaving the country free to be be taken over by our future squirrel overlords.
So the half that didn't vote are to be subjegated by the squirrel overlords...?
Great. You are a prejudiced idiot. "Professionalism" is an attitude and a work ethic; it has nothing whatsoever do to with the clothes you are wearing. Nothing. I've met social retards in Armani suits, and I've met consummate experts in overalls and yes, sandals and ponytails.
"Professionalism" is a perception. It's how others perceive you. Yes, it's the perception of your work ethic, and the perception of your attitude, but it has just as much to do with the perception of your appearance, and this includes your clothes. It's also one of the bits of your apearance you can change: You can't get taller, better looking or change the color of your skin; but you can change your clothes and brush your hair.
The problem is that techies think that physical appearance should not matter. We should be judged on our technical abilities, and anyone who does otherwise is an idiot, moron or stupid. Then we get cranky when the office schmooze gets promoted despite the obvious lack of talent...
Perhaps it's because we sometimes don't meet face-to-face (ever!) with people we respect - and we respect them because we respect their work. And we want to work with them because we respect their work. And their work (them being good techies) makes our work easier and more enjoyable. No office politics.
But let's take the flip-side. We judge too: We pre-judge the quality of the code by how nice it is to read. We automatically assume that code that is hard to read (poor formatting/layout/comments/whatever) was written by some sub-standard coder... we've just judged the code and the coder without really taking the time to see if it's actually good code. The compiler, afterall, doesn't care about things like formatting and good commenting. So if the resulting compiled code is in fact efficient code, how come we've judged the coder?
So, here's the social version: people have preconceived notions, and these include 'professional' dress code as meaning a suit and tie. You don't have to like it, but if you want the 'suits' to respect you, you have to wear a business suit*.
Another poster said he didn't get the job because of the suit: the place wanted a more relaxed atmosphere. Again, prejudged, but this judgement is rare in the corporate culture.
So the bottom line is people pre-judge you based on (amongst other things) how you dress. And if you want to sell Linux to the Corporate Suit, you have to meet their preconceptions. And those preconceptions are that professionals wear suits. That's why Sales Guys from any major software vendor always show up in a suit....Why should Linux be any different?
*the exception is to be/play the guru: then the expectation is in fact the long hair and sandals...:)
I generally have a few issues with EULAs... the first is the one you mention: it's delivered after-the-fact. you've already bought the s/w, and a lot of stores won't take open boxes back, so it's a major headache if you don't agree with the terms.
Second, the terms are unilaterally imposed. You have no opportunity to negotiate the way you could/would if you were in fact negotiating a contract.
But for me, the biggest concern (illustrated by the Brick EULA) is that they can list any kind of terms they want. How legal the terms are comes down to a judge. Companies add all kinds of additional terms that simply don't exist in property law: neither physical nor 'intellectual'.
Copyright law allows content owners to decide who gets their content, but the EULA extends this authority over how you use the content. Can you imagine if Ford told you that you could only get their car fixed by Ford, had to buy only Ford parts, had to have it serviced after the warranty expired, could not resell the car, had to purchase a new car whenever you moved or changed jobs, (hey, it's licensed for use at only those addresses!) Once Ford has sold you the car, they have (essentially) ZERO say over how you use it. At most, they can deny warranty service. They can't sue you for using it a certain way. They can't stop you from selling it. They can't stop you from modifying it. They can't force you to buy Ford parts. They can't make you service it at Ford. They can't stop you from taking it apart to see how it works.
...oh, and the you can decline argument is invalid, since patents may make it illegal to even make your own version and copyright means you can only get this product from one company. If I want a Ford, but don't like their terms, I can go to a private dealer/broker and see what their terms are. And yes, they can sell me a brand new Ford, and yes the terms (where the terms in question on a car is the price, the payment and the warranty) will very likely be different than those offered by Ford. Ford can't stop a broker from reselling the new car to me.
So, can anyone explain why IP should allow rights-holders greater power over my property than they already exercise simply by having their legalised monopoly?
Yes, you can enter into a contract to not move the software to another computer (and using an OEM version of Windows is absolutely considered entering into such a contract.)
So you will accept as legal contract
"By accepting this BRICK through your WINDOW, you accept it as is and agree to my disclaimer of ALL warranties, express or implied, as well as disclaimers of all liability, direct, indirect, consequential or incidental, that may arise from the installation of this BRICK into your building."
which I will attach to the brick I throw through your window? cool.
It wouldn't make much sense for Adobe to release Photoshop under an open source license, but it might make sense for Sun to release Solaris under an open source license.
why?
I'm not trolling, I'm curious why you think it might make sense for one and not the other...(besides the real reason: profit)
You are not, however, allowed to roll back the mileage on the odometer even though it is technically feasible.
That's because the odomoter reading has meaning for warranty and re-sale purposes. It's not because changing the odomoter causes Ford to lose money*. So it's really a law designed for fraud purposes. Rolling back the odomoter is really only a crime if you then try and use that to your advantage**. So we're really back to Ford being able to say that you can't change the stereo for a non-Ford, or change the break-pads to a non-Ford etc.
So, assuming that you mod your X-Box and either never sell it, or on sale of it disclose that it has been modified, what business is it of Sony's? It's my f*!^@!!! property, and they should have no more rights over it once I've paid for it.
*assume you don't obtain warranty service you are not entitled to. (i.e. there is a second action required)
**yes, yes, I'm aware the law makes no such distinction - but that is the spirit of the law.
He seems to have trouble reading in general terms. Check out his closing note about google where he says that Google is in clear violation of copyright law. If you actually use or look at Google books you will see that they not only provide maximum two pages from a book, they provide links to buy the book you've just found. Not only (IANAL) is this not a copyright infringment, it's helpful to the book industry. I suspect that the lawsuit is just a cash-grab - they want a piece of Google's ad revenue as well as the increased sales google books is going to provide. It's business RIAA style: When making a profit is not enough, sue someone for more.
You just have to find out what their name on myspace or whatever "online community" they are wasting their time on they are using and join there and remind them there's a actual world outside Cyberspace.
Dear xiando;
You're wasting your time on/. There is an actual world outside Cyberspace.
</reminder>
Obscenity is and should always be defined by the community -- preferably by the household.
So unless I'm missing something here, you're suggesting that every household be allowed to charge some organisation or person with felony charges based on their own definition of obscene?
Ok; well, since I have determined that within my house the phonetic sound 'dada' is obscene, and since your post includes a spelling of this sound I'm calling to have charges pressed...
C'mon, this is the internet - the content of the world is at the end of a cable... so we're talking about censorship as decided by the least tolerant people.
So while I do agree that every household should be allowed to decide for itself what is decent, that can not be allowed to translate into felony charges! It can only translate into that household electing not to view certain content... no charges.
And it is for that reason that I think this ruling is something of a mistake.
I think PsiPsiStar's point was that (almost) any job can be outsourced, so IT isn't special. Teachers, doctors, lawyers all could be connected to their 'client' by video conference - in the extreme, required physical contact - like drawing blood (for the doctor not the lawyer, silly) could be done via robotics.
But what we are really talking about is... technology! and since IT tends to be pretty leading-edge in uses of technology we are simply seeing this phenomenon earlier in IT than elsewhere.
It was originally designed to protect the artists but now it also benefits the labels and other big business.
The DMCA was never designed to help artists - the DMCA was always only about big business. The original copyright deal (14yrs) from a coupl'a hundred years ago was designed in a (misguided*) attempt to help artists, but out of that protection grew a very wealthy oligopoly that has pushed the copyright deal well beyond reasononable and well into unreasonable and socially damaging protections (their monopoly-type profits is proof that 14yrs was already too long).
When you look back at all the concessions that have already been given, it doesn't take a genius to realize the artists never benefited from those concessions.
bingo.
Musicians don't make any money on the CDs. They make it doing live shows. Copyright isn't about artists: it's about the profits of the (now fully redundant) middleman.
*like communism sounds good on paper, so too does Intellectual Property...I can only hope that both will one day be relegated to the history books as unworkable...
Wouldn't the designers of any system entrusted to protect the lives of others automatically reject DRM as an elemnent of that system if it could prove to be a point of failure?
...yes, until your trusty sysadmin drops the latest Our Lady Peace - Healthy in Paranoid Times CD into the production server to help pass the weekend by. And then your production server is infected with DRM and you're fskered.
Yes, this is a configuration/control issue, but if I had told you 5 yrs ago that audio CDs sold by a major international corporation would install back-doors, you would have told me I was crazy. I'm sure that plenty of sysadmin's have played audio CDs on the production box at one point or another...
"till you can define privacy, security etc., we don't want to commit".
laws are never so well defined... that's why people find room to wriggle out of them.
Words like 'privacy', 'security' and 'critical infrastructure' have reasonably well defined meanings.
Besides... this is coming from the Digital Rights Management and piracy! crowd who turn words over at their whim.
At this point, imho, they are only concerned with allowing the minimum number of exception/exemptions - regardless of how egregious their actions might be. This is like the politician who says: 8% tax increase (everyone boos), well, we reworked the numbers, and if we work real hard together we can do it for only 5%. (everyone cheers for a 5% tax increase?!) It's an age old tactic of setting up something so untenable that people accept something merely bad as being ok by comparison. (and if they happen to be ok with 8%, then you just got a raise too!)
You can always choose not to use PERMISSIONS, whereas unilaterally deciding to reject RESTRICTIONS is a recipe for trouble.
...and that is precisely the point. The (cc) license in question requires attribution. So this license is in fact making demands of it's own. The fact that many people (here) feel that these are not unreasonable demands isn't really the question. From Microsoft's point of view, no decompiling and demands on your first born daughter (those monsters!) are also reasonable. So we are in a situation where there is an implicit agreement, created by the copyright holder which makes different demands on the licesnsee than copyright does, and it's been upheld in court.
And this is where the slippery slope problem starts, and my concerns begin. The law has no place for 'good' and 'evil', or morals and ethics. The judicial system can only read the letter of laws and combine with precedent. What this case does is (possibly) create some precedant that shrink-wrap/click-thru EULAs are enforceable...
The difference, and I'd suggest it is a big one, is that the CC license grants the user EXTRA rights over and above the default copyright situation. "Evil" shrinkwrap licenses take them away.
While I agree that the intent is different, I think he was referring to the submarine effect that copyright has in general terms. The problem is that 'good' and 'evil' don't have the any meaning in the legal system. There is only 'legal' and 'illegal' and an EULA is an EULA is an EULA. This 'good' judgement might set an 'evil' precedent.
I guess I share the concern that this may validate shrink-wrap/click-thru EULA's...
I do think there can be an acceptable way to agree, through contract, to tell a person what they can and can't do with a product you sell them.
I don't see why any company should be able to decide how I use things I own.
Your morning coffee now starts with This Starbucks Coffee License is a single user license, and does not allow you to sell or give away this coffee to anyone else. The coffee must be consumed within fifteen (15) minutes of purchase. Unused potions must be disposed of at a designated Starbucks facility (fees may apply). Enjoy your coffee.
Except what has Apple done that's really all that restrictive? Get real...
Apple has already changed the deal once. There is nothing to prevent them from removing even more ability.
A not impossible end-state is where a file plays on one machine only. Want the same song on two computers, your portable player and your phone? buy it 4 times. Machine dies? re-buy all your songs. CD ripping disabled. Period.
You can say "whatever, never happen", but I'm not talking tomorrow. Rights can get eroded over time - they just have to keep the steps small enough that (1) no one notices or (2) no one cares or (3) you're so far down the hole by then that there's nothing you can do. Hardware DRM that only executes signed binaries is one step towards #3.
Why this isn't modded Funny, I don't know....maybe cause +1 Sad doesn't exist?
I would LOVE to prevent people from stealing my software.
I have a simple solution that keeps anyone from ever 'stealing' your code: Don't release it. (and b.t.w: they can't "steal" your software, at most they could steal the media on which you have stored your software)
I'm also a professional software developer.
welcome to/.
I would LOVE to prevent people from stealing my software. If you refuse to use my software under my terms, then you should not have access to it. It's that's simple.
wow. that's some fine entitlement you have going on there. It's funny that you think your thoughts trump my property rights. I wonder how acceptable you would find it if Starbucks told you how to drink your coffee, or that you couldn't give your coffee to someone else, or that because Starbucks sells coffee, no one else is allowed...
The so-called "intellectual property" is not a right. And don't confuse "making a billionare" with rarely [making] any money. Lots of people make a living writing software either on a one-off basis, a custom basis, or on a corporate basis, working on (essentially) an hourly wage. In fact, those that make the 'billions' are not only not the norm, they're generally not the programmers: it's the marketers.
A small time developer would actually be able to quit side jobs and just sell their software
Again with the sense of entitlement. Like somehow you are entitled to work for an hour, but get paid forever. I'm not making light of the hours you (might) put into software development - I'm just pointing out the current model makes no relation between total sales and hours worked. What it does do is reward even if you stop producing. In a competitive environment producers need to keep producing... worker bees get paid by the hour - why should you be different?
The people selling this pipe dream are the current monopoly, making monpoly profits that they want to protect. They push for legislation that helps themselves... they don't give a sh*t about what's best for the little guy, regardless of how well they are able to spin it.
Slashdot Mirror
So, this is the reason that I like to use the term monopoly. It is the singleness of it. A monopoly will never turn on itself, while (for example) OPEC has had members undercut or (more often) overproduce on a regular basis. There are also countries that don't join OPEC, and they are not only able to thrive they also are able to apply pressure to ensure that OPEC can't exercise monopoly control.
So I think it's important to change the term Intellectual Property for one that is more correct: Intellectual Monopoly. Part of accomplishing this is to ensure that at every possible legitimate* place the term monopoly is used to describe how the members of an oligopoly act. I think this helps bring it to focus for people, as (most?) people associate "monopoly" with "bad" thanks to the local telephone and cable companies...
It's all part of taking back the language from those that sell 'restrictions' as 'rights', 'ideas' as 'property' and 'fair-play' as 'fair', 'plays-for-sure' as somehow to my benefit (shouldn't that be true by default?).
*just 'cause they lie, doesn't mean I will....
So it's wrong to lend a DVD or a book to a friend?
So it's wrong to read a book at the library?
So it's wrong to play a CD on my stereo when an 'unlicensed' person is in the house?
So it's wrong to describe a TV episode to someone else?
In every day life we benefit from many others, most of whom we never meet, nor compensate in any way. None of these people ever granted permission to us. It's a very slippery slope when you assume that the 'creator' has infinte rights over 'ideas': soon a corporation will own you in every way possible.
It's interesting to note that one of the biggest proponents of copyright (Disney) has based some of it's biggest hits on stories from the public domain (they didn't create Snow White!) yet they fight to keep their simple mouse from being used by others - ever!
Even though this comment always gets modded down, I'm going to say it anyways: If you don't want people to share in your ideas, don't share them. Problem solved.
My first big idea of 2006? Peer to Peer networks! I'll call them p2p for short, I'm sure they will be a big success. We could charge a fee for encumbered media that only works the way we want, and expect our customers to help distribute to boot.... errr, what? p2p exists and people use it freely already to obtain unencumbered media. damn! I thought I was onto a brand new idea here. ...errr, what? people have been recording TV just fine without me for more than 20yrs? and they've been recording them digitially using a PVR for the better half of a decade?
ok; my next big idea is to record TV shows for people, and store them on my server. Then people can tell me what they want recorded and watch it later. I'm sure this one will fly!
dammit! why does the market always beat me to the punch?? there must be some way I can extort more money out of people for useless services.
Does this stem from a practical reason? Sure, but that's not the point. The point is that we've judged the quality of the code based on the appearance of the code.
By the same token, people are judged by their appearance.
You don't have to like it or agree with it, but it is reality.
Wear a bathing suit to work, or a 3-piece suit to the beach and people will look at you funny ... the particular discussion was about selling linux to the corporate environment, and that calls for a suit.
I, for one, welcome our new squirrel overlords...
The problem is that techies think that physical appearance should not matter. We should be judged on our technical abilities, and anyone who does otherwise is an idiot, moron or stupid. Then we get cranky when the office schmooze gets promoted despite the obvious lack of talent...
Perhaps it's because we sometimes don't meet face-to-face (ever!) with people we respect - and we respect them because we respect their work. And we want to work with them because we respect their work. And their work (them being good techies) makes our work easier and more enjoyable. No office politics. ... we've just judged the code and the coder without really taking the time to see if it's actually good code. The compiler, afterall, doesn't care about things like formatting and good commenting. So if the resulting compiled code is in fact efficient code, how come we've judged the coder?
But let's take the flip-side. We judge too: We pre-judge the quality of the code by how nice it is to read. We automatically assume that code that is hard to read (poor formatting/layout/comments/whatever) was written by some sub-standard coder
So, here's the social version: people have preconceived notions, and these include 'professional' dress code as meaning a suit and tie. You don't have to like it, but if you want the 'suits' to respect you, you have to wear a business suit*.
Another poster said he didn't get the job because of the suit: the place wanted a more relaxed atmosphere. Again, prejudged, but this judgement is rare in the corporate culture.
So the bottom line is people pre-judge you based on (amongst other things) how you dress. And if you want to sell Linux to the Corporate Suit, you have to meet their preconceptions. And those preconceptions are that professionals wear suits. That's why Sales Guys from any major software vendor always show up in a suit....Why should Linux be any different?
*the exception is to be/play the guru: then the expectation is in fact the long hair and sandals... :)
Second, the terms are unilaterally imposed. You have no opportunity to negotiate the way you could/would if you were in fact negotiating a contract.
But for me, the biggest concern (illustrated by the Brick EULA) is that they can list any kind of terms they want. How legal the terms are comes down to a judge. Companies add all kinds of additional terms that simply don't exist in property law: neither physical nor 'intellectual'.
Copyright law allows content owners to decide who gets their content, but the EULA extends this authority over how you use the content. Can you imagine if Ford told you that you could only get their car fixed by Ford, had to buy only Ford parts, had to have it serviced after the warranty expired, could not resell the car, had to purchase a new car whenever you moved or changed jobs, (hey, it's licensed for use at only those addresses!) Once Ford has sold you the car, they have (essentially) ZERO say over how you use it. At most, they can deny warranty service. They can't sue you for using it a certain way. They can't stop you from selling it. They can't stop you from modifying it. They can't force you to buy Ford parts. They can't make you service it at Ford. They can't stop you from taking it apart to see how it works.
So, can anyone explain why IP should allow rights-holders greater power over my property than they already exercise simply by having their legalised monopoly?
I'm not trolling, I'm curious why you think it might make sense for one and not the other...(besides the real reason: profit)
So, assuming that you mod your X-Box and either never sell it, or on sale of it disclose that it has been modified, what business is it of Sony's? It's my f*!^@!!! property, and they should have no more rights over it once I've paid for it.
*assume you don't obtain warranty service you are not entitled to. (i.e. there is a second action required)
**yes, yes, I'm aware the law makes no such distinction - but that is the spirit of the law.
It's business RIAA style: When making a profit is not enough, sue someone for more.
You're wasting your time on
</reminder>
Ok; well, since I have determined that within my house the phonetic sound 'dada' is obscene, and since your post includes a spelling of this sound I'm calling to have charges pressed...
C'mon, this is the internet - the content of the world is at the end of a cable ... so we're talking about censorship as decided by the least tolerant people.
So while I do agree that every household should be allowed to decide for itself what is decent, that can not be allowed to translate into felony charges! It can only translate into that household electing not to view certain content ... no charges.
And it is for that reason that I think this ruling is something of a mistake.
But what we are really talking about is ... technology! and since IT tends to be pretty leading-edge in uses of technology we are simply seeing this phenomenon earlier in IT than elsewhere.
Musicians don't make any money on the CDs. They make it doing live shows. Copyright isn't about artists: it's about the profits of the (now fully redundant) middleman.
*like communism sounds good on paper, so too does Intellectual Property...I can only hope that both will one day be relegated to the history books as unworkable...
Yes, this is a configuration/control issue, but if I had told you 5 yrs ago that audio CDs sold by a major international corporation would install back-doors, you would have told me I was crazy. I'm sure that plenty of sysadmin's have played audio CDs on the production box at one point or another...
Words like 'privacy', 'security' and 'critical infrastructure' have reasonably well defined meanings.
Besides ... this is coming from the Digital Rights Management and piracy! crowd who turn words over at their whim.
At this point, imho, they are only concerned with allowing the minimum number of exception/exemptions - regardless of how egregious their actions might be.
This is like the politician who says: 8% tax increase (everyone boos), well, we reworked the numbers, and if we work real hard together we can do it for only 5%. (everyone cheers for a 5% tax increase?!) It's an age old tactic of setting up something so untenable that people accept something merely bad as being ok by comparison. (and if they happen to be ok with 8%, then you just got a raise too!)
And this is where the slippery slope problem starts, and my concerns begin. The law has no place for 'good' and 'evil', or morals and ethics. The judicial system can only read the letter of laws and combine with precedent. What this case does is (possibly) create some precedant that shrink-wrap/click-thru EULAs are enforceable...
I guess I share the concern that this may validate shrink-wrap/click-thru EULA's...
Your morning coffee now starts with This Starbucks Coffee License is a single user license, and does not allow you to sell or give away this coffee to anyone else. The coffee must be consumed within fifteen (15) minutes of purchase. Unused potions must be disposed of at a designated Starbucks facility (fees may apply). Enjoy your coffee.
Anything that can be abused will be abused.
well, I see someone has mod points to burn and doesn't agree with my opinion.
A not impossible end-state is where a file plays on one machine only. Want the same song on two computers, your portable player and your phone? buy it 4 times. Machine dies? re-buy all your songs. CD ripping disabled. Period.
You can say "whatever, never happen", but I'm not talking tomorrow. Rights can get eroded over time - they just have to keep the steps small enough that (1) no one notices or (2) no one cares or (3) you're so far down the hole by then that there's nothing you can do. Hardware DRM that only executes signed binaries is one step towards #3.
I have a simple solution that keeps anyone from ever 'stealing' your code: Don't release it. (and b.t.w: they can't "steal" your software, at most they could steal the media on which you have stored your software) welcome to
The so-called "intellectual property" is not a right. And don't confuse "making a billionare" with rarely [making] any money. Lots of people make a living writing software either on a one-off basis, a custom basis, or on a corporate basis, working on (essentially) an hourly wage. In fact, those that make the 'billions' are not only not the norm, they're generally not the programmers: it's the marketers.
Again with the sense of entitlement. Like somehow you are entitled to work for an hour, but get paid forever. I'm not making light of the hours you (might) put into software development - I'm just pointing out the current model makes no relation between total sales and hours worked. What it does do is reward even if you stop producing. In a competitive environment producers need to keep producing... worker bees get paid by the hour - why should you be different?The people selling this pipe dream are the current monopoly, making monpoly profits that they want to protect. They push for legislation that helps themselves ... they don't give a sh*t about what's best for the little guy, regardless of how well they are able to spin it.