And then all of a sudden, one of the important clauses of the GPL, that stating that you have to contribute back your changes and open your source in exchange for using GPL code, is now unenforceable. There would be absolutely nothing stopping a big company from taking GPL code, closing it, and never contributing back their changes.
Software should never be a product in and of itself.
So I shouldn't be able to sell the product of my hard work? I should only be able to make money off of software that someone else had decided they need? Awesome. Now it's nothing but.NET CRUD apps in my future.
Software is something people write and get paid for writing. That should be the complete extent of income from software...
Books are something people write. Yet, people don't get paid just for writing books, but from selling the actual book/ebook itself.
So you're basically allowing the big guy to copy the little guy outright, instead of making them work a little bit?
Copyright has nothing to do with this problem, and abolishing it won't solve it. Get rid of copyright, and Zynga is just going to be even more blatant about their ripoffs.
In addition, a lot of law is not actually legislated, but is interpretation and decisions from judges. One of the things that lawyers get paid for is to keep up with this, and be able to research it. Sure, you could do that yourself, but it takes a good amount of time, and most people wouldn't have a clue as to where to start.
The alternative is having laws that are so broad and loose in their interpretation that they could mean anything. Complex law is usually fairly specific law, which is better.
Loss leaders are not illegal. Using a loss leader to drive out competition, and then once you have a dominant marketshare, raising the price of that loss leader is.
It became extremely popular, and is still FREE to use for anyone.
No, it's not. Not for DEVELOPERS, which is the entire point of this suit. The Maps API used to be free. Now that they have a dominant market position, it's not.
Why don't you read your definition again? According to that, Google most definitely does have a monopoly in search. They are dominant in that area. And what they're getting slapped for is not for having a monopoly on search, which is quite fine, but by abusing that monopoly to edge themselves into other markets and drive out competition.
* Google doesn't have a monopoly anywhere, even in search.
Maybe you should stop being a child and trying to insinuate that the only way someone can have a monopoly is by being the only actor. That's not true, and hasn't been for a long time.
* Google Maps is not given away, it sports ads, and the API costs money to access
It was with respect to the developer API, which is what the case is about. You could use that API for FREE, not free + ads. And now that they are the dominant player in the space, and one could easily say they got there because they were free, they are raising their prices. That is the very definition of anti-competitive.
You fail to mention Mapquest, or MS maps. Why just sue Google for its maps? Because it is the best one out there?
Because they're the ones with the legal monopoly.
Why should Bottin be kept alive? Why not Garmin?
Why should Google Maps get to survive by subsidies from other Google divisions? Why can't they compete on their own?
That's horseshit and you know it. Google was the dominant player in that space, period. To deny it is to stick your head in the sand and go "LALALALALALALALALA".
And yes, Google was giving away use of Google Maps FOR FREE. Not Free+Ads, but FREE. If you were a developer, you were allowed to use the Maps API for free. And now that they have achieved a dominant market position, mainly because their API was free, they are charging for its use. That is the very definition of anticompetitive: Artificially lower your rates through subsidies from your other departments, then once you've achieved dominance, raise your rates.
So? They are the copyright holder, correct? So they have been given the right to decide how the song is distributed. If they don't want their song associated with a particular campaign, then that's their right, isn't it.
Should the creator of a work be forced to give implicit support to a candidate they don't agree with, because that candidate decided to use their song?
Fuck off. Part of the problem are people bitching about regulatory compliance, and creating the illusion that costs are high. They aren't, especially if you're actually doing the shit you should be doing in the first place.
If you have to retool things to not fuck over the environment and create a safe working environment, then things might be expensive. But you should have though of that when you were designing your factory in the first place.
Or for those that are tired of the absolute bullshit assholes like you feed us. There is absolutely nothing justifying anything in any of your posts that "regulatory compliance is too expensive!" other than what I said above.
This is noble, but I doubt most consumers would do that. By the time they call around to 2-3 or three stores, drive there, stand in line, etc. they could have ordered from Amazon. Granted, if it's December 24th or something they really want immediately, they'll put up with this, but normally? No.
Depends on what it is, and if I wanted it today or if I can wait.
And really, what you mentioned is not that big of a hassle. How fucking lazy are you?
If you had, you would have realised that the other tech companies often pay these manufacturers more money to be spent on improving work conditions, whereas Apple chooses to squeeze them for every dirty brown penny, which inevitably leads to cuts in worker pay and conditions.
And you're gonna have to give a citation to actually back up your claim this actually happens, and that the executives just don't pocket the difference. Remember, Foxconn makes a lot of shit for Microsoft, too.
Slashdot Mirror
How would that do anything but make it easier for Zynga to rip off small studio's games?
Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with this problem. Fucking with it won't fix this problem.
And then all of a sudden, one of the important clauses of the GPL, that stating that you have to contribute back your changes and open your source in exchange for using GPL code, is now unenforceable. There would be absolutely nothing stopping a big company from taking GPL code, closing it, and never contributing back their changes.
Piss and moan all you want, it's true.
copyrights allow little guys to get into business eh ? where are all the little guys then ?
Check out the Humble Indie Bundles for some examples.
what happened to the people zygna, microsoft, google copied ?
About the same thing that would happen to them if there was no copyright. Except the original author would have even less recourse available to them.
removing patents and copyrights, reverting it to before how it was prior to coming to prominence before 1850, will be the solution.
No, it won't. Not to this problem. Do that, and now you've just made it EASIER for Zynga to rip someone off.
Seriously fucking explain how removing copyrights will stop Zynga from ripping someone off.
however, free sharing spirit in science, engineering, literature and music was prioritized by the people
Free sharing is good. It doesn't tend to pay the bills, especially with games, though.
Yes, but without copyright, Zynga wouldn't even have to do it themselves. They could just lift the code and use that.
Software should never be a product in and of itself.
So I shouldn't be able to sell the product of my hard work? I should only be able to make money off of software that someone else had decided they need? Awesome. Now it's nothing but .NET CRUD apps in my future.
Software is something people write and get paid for writing. That should be the complete extent of income from software...
Books are something people write. Yet, people don't get paid just for writing books, but from selling the actual book/ebook itself.
So you're basically allowing the big guy to copy the little guy outright, instead of making them work a little bit?
Copyright has nothing to do with this problem, and abolishing it won't solve it. Get rid of copyright, and Zynga is just going to be even more blatant about their ripoffs.
That's quite possibly the stupidest fucking statement I've read today. "How many laws are there?"
I tell you what, why don't I ask you how many scientific theories there are. Can't answer? Well, I guess that means that science is bad too.
For the most part, it's not. It's mainly that the average person doesn't want to be bothered to understand it.
In addition, a lot of law is not actually legislated, but is interpretation and decisions from judges. One of the things that lawyers get paid for is to keep up with this, and be able to research it. Sure, you could do that yourself, but it takes a good amount of time, and most people wouldn't have a clue as to where to start.
The alternative is having laws that are so broad and loose in their interpretation that they could mean anything. Complex law is usually fairly specific law, which is better.
Loss leaders are not illegal. Using a loss leader to drive out competition, and then once you have a dominant marketshare, raising the price of that loss leader is.
It became extremely popular, and is still FREE to use for anyone.
No, it's not. Not for DEVELOPERS, which is the entire point of this suit. The Maps API used to be free. Now that they have a dominant market position, it's not.
Why don't you read your definition again? According to that, Google most definitely does have a monopoly in search. They are dominant in that area. And what they're getting slapped for is not for having a monopoly on search, which is quite fine, but by abusing that monopoly to edge themselves into other markets and drive out competition.
* Google doesn't have a monopoly anywhere, even in search.
Maybe you should stop being a child and trying to insinuate that the only way someone can have a monopoly is by being the only actor. That's not true, and hasn't been for a long time.
* Google Maps is not given away, it sports ads, and the API costs money to access
It was with respect to the developer API, which is what the case is about. You could use that API for FREE, not free + ads. And now that they are the dominant player in the space, and one could easily say they got there because they were free, they are raising their prices. That is the very definition of anti-competitive.
You fail to mention Mapquest, or MS maps. Why just sue Google for its maps? Because it is the best one out there?
Because they're the ones with the legal monopoly.
Why should Bottin be kept alive? Why not Garmin?
Why should Google Maps get to survive by subsidies from other Google divisions? Why can't they compete on their own?
That's horseshit and you know it. Google was the dominant player in that space, period. To deny it is to stick your head in the sand and go "LALALALALALALALALA".
And yes, Google was giving away use of Google Maps FOR FREE. Not Free+Ads, but FREE. If you were a developer, you were allowed to use the Maps API for free. And now that they have achieved a dominant market position, mainly because their API was free, they are charging for its use. That is the very definition of anticompetitive: Artificially lower your rates through subsidies from your other departments, then once you've achieved dominance, raise your rates.
It's still a dick thing to do.
Ummm, no? Check the Amazon app store. There are paid, ad-free versions of Angry Birds there.
So? They are the copyright holder, correct? So they have been given the right to decide how the song is distributed. If they don't want their song associated with a particular campaign, then that's their right, isn't it.
Should the creator of a work be forced to give implicit support to a candidate they don't agree with, because that candidate decided to use their song?
Android has it's own share of problems joining hidden networks. Especially those that implement WPA2 Enterprise security.
I've never had an app crash (my iPad, by comparison, crashes constantly).
Are you sure that's not an isolated incident?
Fuck off. Part of the problem are people bitching about regulatory compliance, and creating the illusion that costs are high. They aren't, especially if you're actually doing the shit you should be doing in the first place.
If you have to retool things to not fuck over the environment and create a safe working environment, then things might be expensive. But you should have though of that when you were designing your factory in the first place.
Or for those that are tired of the absolute bullshit assholes like you feed us. There is absolutely nothing justifying anything in any of your posts that "regulatory compliance is too expensive!" other than what I said above.
This is noble, but I doubt most consumers would do that. By the time they call around to 2-3 or three stores, drive there, stand in line, etc. they could have ordered from Amazon. Granted, if it's December 24th or something they really want immediately, they'll put up with this, but normally? No.
Depends on what it is, and if I wanted it today or if I can wait.
And really, what you mentioned is not that big of a hassle. How fucking lazy are you?
If you had, you would have realised that the other tech companies often pay these manufacturers more money to be spent on improving work conditions, whereas Apple chooses to squeeze them for every dirty brown penny, which inevitably leads to cuts in worker pay and conditions.
And you're gonna have to give a citation to actually back up your claim this actually happens, and that the executives just don't pocket the difference. Remember, Foxconn makes a lot of shit for Microsoft, too.