Well... maybe you're the exception then, because there is plenty of evidence that marketing works. People are susceptible to the advertisements that they see, and people do respond to them.
If marketing didn't work, and products really had to stand on their own merits the world would be a whole lot different than it is today.
Personally I think that what the open-source community needs in general terms is more marketing. The closed-source guys get it -- they get it because they didn't win market share by writing a better product (not even better than the other closed-source guy). The closed-source companys won market share by MARKETING. Plain and simple. And now that they face a new competitor (open source) they respond in a time-tested manner: marketing.
It should be plain and obvious by now that the steady stream of "articles" (c|net, zdnet etc) are just part of a marketing campaign; hidden under the umbrella of 'news'.
I discovered dmusic from another poster here on/. yesterday...
I've listened to a few bands - it's pretty raw stuff in some cases, but hey! that's when music still has a soul.
I personally like the ideals from the boycott-riaa site:
1) Ongoing boycott of all RIAA products, including the free samples on radio, peer-to-peer and television.
Just not buying the CDs is not enough to kill the beast... boycott all forms of *AA.
I wonder if advancements would equal or match those from for-profit software companies.
In all of mankinds history every new innovation was based on the ideas of those that came before. The rate of change of innovation increased with the rate of dissemination - i.e. As the new idea travelled faster, new ideas came more rapidly.
Today we have virtually instantaneuos data transmission, and we could enter an age of pure innovation...we're just held back by not being allowed to.
So, would they equal or match? exceed, of course. Open source doesn't mean not-for-profit. Open source means that anyone can build on and extend on what others have done. This means that when my office tool is missing features that I want, I can either extend the existing product, or hire someone to do it for me (for their profit!). In the current system we are all relying on a single company to build what they think we want. I wonder what we would have if the consumer had a real voice (as they can in open source) ?
The principle of copyright is sound: to encourage those with the ability to produce useful and/or entertaining works to share what they create for the benefit of others.
People invented and shared before protections existed - if they hadn't we wouldn't have the cars (wheel-->carriage-->car) all invented without protections.
The only reason we're trying to fix something that isn't broken is because people with lots of money want more money, and have convinced law makers that only by economic incentive will there be additional innovations....right. I happened to write in my journal on this subject just this morning...
Humans can stop their creative processes from working right along with their hearts and lungs.
Re:Massachusetts decision has nothing to do with O
on
The Demise of IP?
·
· Score: 1
* Procure software on its merits, not through categorical preferences
* Promote broad availability of government funded research
* Promote interoperability through platform-neutral standards
* Maintain a choice of strong intellectual property protections
hmmm...
First off, how does open source as an option interfere with these stated goals? I think that every open-source project would like to be considered for use by guvs and corps alongside their closed-source counterparts on an equality basis.
How the hell do they think "interoperability through platform-neutral standards" and "strong intellectual property protections" can coexist? With some notable exceptions, protected standards aren't open... when there's a problem to be solved, every company puts people to work and creates a proprietary standard, and then haggles with the competitors over which one wins. (blu-ray hd-dvd, beta vhs etc etc etc).
In the long-term, strong protections will result in only closed standards.
I'm amused that I started writing about IP in my journal this morning... this will certainly add fuel for my upcoming entries.
Your "weak man", "woman" and "b'n-e victim" are definitely all the victim of crimes, and yes, in each case, it was the perpetrator who is guilty and 100% responsible for the illegal activity.
The difference is that as long as corporations are acting within the law and take advantage of laws, or even get laws created - even if these actions are immoral - they have done nothing illegal. The mandate of a corporation is to maximise return for shareholders. If they can get a law passed that forces every household to give them $100 every year, then so be it.
The solution can't be to expect the shark to stop feeding - it is in their nature. So I agree that the solution needs to be to take additional precautions, and yes, some of that precaution might be to diminish or eliminate direct (financial) coercion.
Is that going to fix the problem? I doubt it, since power attracts corruption, and the power still exists (and must exist). So after all of this I don't have a solution other than to try and work within the system - mail, phone, visit your representative(s). With enough pressure they will forget the campaign contributions... politicians live and die by the voters ballot - money they can get anywhere.
I mean, how can you justify preordering or standing hours in line to spend over $400 on something you know only what the MS marketing team told you about?
I've seen corporate management buy multi-hundred thousand dollar software packages based solely on the power-point presentation the sales-guy gave... $400 for something unseen and untested?...peanuts.
I debated putting that bit on there; I knew I'd take some flak... but it just seemed a perfect fit - my own personal experience, showing that some people, despite all the facts just don't see the big deal, or don't want to change.
My wife just doesn't even care to try to get it... To her, computers are a mystical black box that just work and she doesn't care how, and for her Exploder has always worked. She's had quite the opposite experience (of ie vs ff) actually - in the the couple of times she's used Firefox she discovered that some pages don't load the same, or don't load properly... don't try and tell her that it's MSs fault, or a bad web-page, or poor standards, or unsafe controls, scripts, or whatever; she doesn't care... it looked/worked right under Exploder, and back she goes.
The report found that there were more system failures experienced by Linux
I know when I think of Linux, I think of all the reboots, system halts and failures, and when I think of Windows I think of long-term servers that just run and run and run, even dry-walled over... but hey, that's probably just 'cause I read the Executive Summary.
I've often said that this is at least partly a PR war that free (as in speech) music is losing... but this kind of thing could ruin the double-speak for the *AA.
If we can't actually take back the language, perhaps we can subvert the perversion....
Got anything to back this?
The way I read "fair-use" in the US, is that it is protection granted to comment on works. I don't see how copying the entire work onto a different media would be included in that definition.
use portions of copyrighted materials forpurposes of commentary and criticism
...kinda like the above quote.:)
Fair use here in Canada though (not looking for a backing link, but I'm sure of this) does allow making of "backups" or alternate copies of something once you own a single copy.
copyrights and patents are a really stupid way of trying to get people to create ideas.
Perhaps it's because I'm an ardent capitalist that I find the current situation of economic incentives appealing. There are areas of expertise that require multi-million dollar installations, or highly specialised staff (read: well paid) in order to cause additional advancement. We are, fortunately, past the point where a guy can get hit on the head by an apple to have a revelation.
My only real concern with these protections is that they seem to last forever, and basically prohibit anyone from building on the existing knowledge. Yet at the same time, how do we encourage economic investments to occur if there is a virtual guarantee that the new idea will be given away the moment it is created? Would you invest your money in this? Your time, perhaps, but I doubt your money.
So! While I agree with you that these protections are harmful, they are also beneficial, and have yet to hear from anyone a better way... any suggestions? This isn't a troll... I'm genuinely wondering if anyone has a better way?
What's with all the AC's on this issue... at the time I'm posting this there are 44 comments, and 12 are AC.
What exactly does this say about people and this discussion? If here on/. no one wants to publicly make a statement, how can anyone expect things to change in the physical world??
I can see people hiding behind AC if they're admitting something illegal etc... but c'mon. I see several people making good points as AC that they shouldn't be ashamed of making publicly... We need to speak up on this issue if we want to have any hope of making a change!
just my 1/5-dime....
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... if western society thinks it can stop other countries from using existing ideas to build new ideas, we're crazy.
China, as an example, has shown a complete lack of respect for the copyrights on software, and I see nothing to convince me that they are going to pay any attention to north american IP laws when push-comes-to-shove...
At some point the 'powers' are going to have to realise that ideas are not the same as physical property, and can not be treated the same.
All new knowedge is built on the work of those that came before. The rate of increase of new ideas is directly related to how quickly the new idea can be passed on to. So why is it that now when the dissemination of information is essentially instantaneous and free we are working hard at creating artificial barriers to impede progress?
Re:Imminent Death of Usenet Predicted.. Film at 11
on
Requiem for Usenet
·
· Score: 1
this isn't evidence that usenet's death is happening; only that ISPs -more specifically ONE ISP- doesn't want to include the cost of maintaining the massive servers in their fixed price... Bell Canada's Sympatico internet service hasn't had binaries in their usenet for years (says MacGyver) ...and if it is in fact only used by a small number of their customer then this makes sense...
the fact that there are dozens of large companies (I believe giganews is the biggest, and giganews was the company rogers was paying for their usenet feed) offering this service tells me that there is in fact a demand for usenet.... from what I've read of late, traffic is UP on usenet, not down, and that tells me that the rumours of usenet's death are greatly exagerated.
Slashdot Mirror
Free copies of the browser?
If marketing didn't work, and products really had to stand on their own merits the world would be a whole lot different than it is today.
Personally I think that what the open-source community needs in general terms is more marketing. The closed-source guys get it -- they get it because they didn't win market share by writing a better product (not even better than the other closed-source guy). The closed-source companys won market share by MARKETING.
Plain and simple.
And now that they face a new competitor (open source) they respond in a time-tested manner: marketing.
It should be plain and obvious by now that the steady stream of "articles" (c|net, zdnet etc) are just part of a marketing campaign; hidden under the umbrella of 'news'.
Since we're throwing out anecdotal evidence ... none of my Firefox' have ever crashed; not under Win2k, WinXP or FC4.
I've listened to a few bands - it's pretty raw stuff in some cases, but hey! that's when music still has a soul.
I personally like the ideals from the boycott-riaa site:
Just not buying the CDs is not enough to kill the beast ... boycott all forms of *AA.
In all of mankinds history every new innovation was based on the ideas of those that came before. The rate of change of innovation increased with the rate of dissemination - i.e. As the new idea travelled faster, new ideas came more rapidly.
Today we have virtually instantaneuos data transmission, and we could enter an age of pure innovation...we're just held back by not being allowed to.
So, would they equal or match? exceed, of course. Open source doesn't mean not-for-profit. Open source means that anyone can build on and extend on what others have done. This means that when my office tool is missing features that I want, I can either extend the existing product, or hire someone to do it for me (for their profit!). In the current system we are all relying on a single company to build what they think we want. I wonder what we would have if the consumer had a real voice (as they can in open source) ?
People invented and shared before protections existed - if they hadn't we wouldn't have the cars (wheel-->carriage-->car) all invented without protections. ...right. I happened to write in my journal on this subject just this morning...
The only reason we're trying to fix something that isn't broken is because people with lots of money want more money, and have convinced law makers that only by economic incentive will there be additional innovations.
Humans can stop their creative processes from working right along with their hearts and lungs.
hmmm...
First off, how does open source as an option interfere with these stated goals? I think that every open-source project would like to be considered for use by guvs and corps alongside their closed-source counterparts on an equality basis.
How the hell do they think "interoperability through platform-neutral standards" and "strong intellectual property protections" can coexist? With some notable exceptions, protected standards aren't open... when there's a problem to be solved, every company puts people to work and creates a proprietary standard, and then haggles with the competitors over which one wins. (blu-ray hd-dvd, beta vhs etc etc etc).
In the long-term, strong protections will result in only closed standards.
I'm amused that I started writing about IP in my journal this morning... this will certainly add fuel for my upcoming entries.
Your "weak man", "woman" and "b'n-e victim" are definitely all the victim of crimes, and yes, in each case, it was the perpetrator who is guilty and 100% responsible for the illegal activity. ... politicians live and die by the voters ballot - money they can get anywhere.
The difference is that as long as corporations are acting within the law and take advantage of laws, or even get laws created - even if these actions are immoral - they have done nothing illegal. The mandate of a corporation is to maximise return for shareholders. If they can get a law passed that forces every household to give them $100 every year, then so be it.
The solution can't be to expect the shark to stop feeding - it is in their nature. So I agree that the solution needs to be to take additional precautions, and yes, some of that precaution might be to diminish or eliminate direct (financial) coercion.
Is that going to fix the problem? I doubt it, since power attracts corruption, and the power still exists (and must exist). So after all of this I don't have a solution other than to try and work within the system - mail, phone, visit your representative(s). With enough pressure they will forget the campaign contributions
...yes, but how many "witches" need to be burned, and "heretics" tortured before the status quo is overthrown?
I've seen corporate management buy multi-hundred thousand dollar software packages based solely on the power-point presentation the sales-guy gave... $400 for something unseen and untested? ...peanuts.
Too fast to keep in contact?
from TFA:
The first thing we look for is the mauve databases - we need all the ram we can get.
I debated putting that bit on there; I knew I'd take some flak ... but it just seemed a perfect fit - my own personal experience, showing that some people, despite all the facts just don't see the big deal, or don't want to change. ... To her, computers are a mystical black box that just work and she doesn't care how, and for her Exploder has always worked. ... it looked/worked right under Exploder, and back she goes.
My wife just doesn't even care to try to get it
She's had quite the opposite experience (of ie vs ff) actually - in the the couple of times she's used Firefox she discovered that some pages don't load the same, or don't load properly... don't try and tell her that it's MSs fault, or a bad web-page, or poor standards, or unsafe controls, scripts, or whatever; she doesn't care
Take Preinstalled Browser,
Add to Lazy User,
and mix in a healthy dose of Ignorance.
Alternate Receipe:
Take Preinstalled Browser,
Add Fear Of Change.
Despite having Firefox installed at home, my wife insists on MSExploder .... I think the linux migration time-table is getting shortened.
That's the problem with linux ... none of the popular software will run on it...
I know when I think of Linux, I think of all the reboots, system halts and failures, and when I think of Windows I think of long-term servers that just run and run and run, even dry-walled over ... but hey, that's probably just 'cause I read the Executive Summary.
Of course listing "MS Office" on the resume doesn't qualify where the requirement was "MS Word" ... that's the mark of the true checkbox-HR officer.
I've often said that this is at least partly a PR war that free (as in speech) music is losing ... but this kind of thing could ruin the double-speak for the *AA.
If we can't actually take back the language, perhaps we can subvert the perversion....
The way I read "fair-use" in the US, is that it is protection granted to comment on works. I don't see how copying the entire work onto a different media would be included in that definition.
From stanford.edu:
Fair use here in Canada though (not looking for a backing link, but I'm sure of this) does allow making of "backups" or alternate copies of something once you own a single copy.
Perhaps it's because I'm an ardent capitalist that I find the current situation of economic incentives appealing. There are areas of expertise that require multi-million dollar installations, or highly specialised staff (read: well paid) in order to cause additional advancement. We are, fortunately, past the point where a guy can get hit on the head by an apple to have a revelation.
My only real concern with these protections is that they seem to last forever, and basically prohibit anyone from building on the existing knowledge. Yet at the same time, how do we encourage economic investments to occur if there is a virtual guarantee that the new idea will be given away the moment it is created? Would you invest your money in this? Your time, perhaps, but I doubt your money.
So! While I agree with you that these protections are harmful, they are also beneficial, and have yet to hear from anyone a better way... any suggestions? This isn't a troll ... I'm genuinely wondering if anyone has a better way?
What's with all the AC's on this issue... at the time I'm posting this there are 44 comments, and 12 are AC. /. no one wants to publicly make a statement, how can anyone expect things to change in the physical world?? ... but c'mon. I see several people making good points as AC that they shouldn't be ashamed of making publicly... We need to speak up on this issue if we want to have any hope of making a change!
What exactly does this say about people and this discussion? If here on
I can see people hiding behind AC if they're admitting something illegal etc
just my 1/5-dime....
I've said it before, and I'll say it again ... if western society thinks it can stop other countries from using existing ideas to build new ideas, we're crazy.
China, as an example, has shown a complete lack of respect for the copyrights on software, and I see nothing to convince me that they are going to pay any attention to north american IP laws when push-comes-to-shove...
At some point the 'powers' are going to have to realise that ideas are not the same as physical property, and can not be treated the same.
All new knowedge is built on the work of those that came before. The rate of increase of new ideas is directly related to how quickly the new idea can be passed on to. So why is it that now when the dissemination of information is essentially instantaneous and free we are working hard at creating artificial barriers to impede progress?
this isn't evidence that usenet's death is happening; only that ISPs -more specifically ONE ISP- doesn't want to include the cost of maintaining the massive servers in their fixed price... Bell Canada's Sympatico internet service hasn't had binaries in their usenet for years (says MacGyver)
...and if it is in fact only used by a small number of their customer then this makes sense... .... from what I've read of late, traffic is UP on usenet, not down, and that tells me that the rumours of usenet's death are greatly exagerated.
the fact that there are dozens of large companies (I believe giganews is the biggest, and giganews was the company rogers was paying for their usenet feed) offering this service tells me that there is in fact a demand for usenet
Try reading /. for two weeks. Most of the posts are off-topic or redundant then you have the bots posting nonsense and let's not forget the regulars!