"Just once I would like to hear from genuine copyright holders on slashdot who both make a living from their creative works *AND* support un-regulated torrenting and file sharing"
Im sure there are lots of programmers here that make a living from creating software (a creative work) and support file sharing.
Or are you only interested in hearing from copyright holders that dont write Free software ?
'Someone in the india ministry of defense should google "french military victories'
Top hit for me is below, it describes a string of victories (And some defeats) going back to 387 B.C. In particular Joan of Arc and Napoleon where involved in french victories.
What is you point, other than documenting your typically ignorant American attitude, i bet you call still call them freedom fries at your house.
I think Cisco (linksys) has probably violated the GPL three times, it would be fascinating to them disconnected from the internet, and see how opinions change after that.
I did mention it to an expert but his view was the three strikes had to apply to end users, i dont rally understand why corporations cant be end users, but anyway...
Output from sloccount for busybox suggests its more like 50 months.
Busybox is highly optimized code, there has been a lot of rewriting to reduce space, without being an expert on how these estimates work, i suggest it underestimates the effort required to create.
Total Physical Source Lines of Code = 192,634 Development Effort Estimate, Person-Years (Person-Months) = 50.12 (601.42) Schedule Estimate, Years = 2.37 (28.45) Total Estimated Cost to Develop = $ 6,770,351
Its hard to have a proper conversation when you skip over fundamental principles, like Intellectual property and real property being different, but anyway...
I agree artists should be able to have a say in the conditions that they release their work.
However, i think your notion of fairness is perverted, how can something be negotiated in fairness if one party has all the rights, and the other has no right to negotiate.
To be 'fair' the conditions a work is released under should meet objectives that government had in mind when they granted individuals the power to license their work, the license should "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Having cartels decide the conditions that a work is released under should put corporate profits ahead of both artists and consumers does not meet the purposes under which the power to license was given to them.
Its not consumers vs artists, its consumers and artists vs greedy corporations.
This is the section of the parent post i responding to.
"Over time, the prices tend to equalize around a point where (cost of production) = (average revenue from a single purchase)*(number of purchases). Why is this the case? Because of competition."
My point is that argument cannot apply to artistic works. Good painting get more expensive over time, Vincent van Gogh's painting started of worthless, and over time became priceless.
The reason is that "Cost of Production" cannot factor the value of a unique human life, how much was Steve Jobs worth to Apple, how did he influence the cost of production ?
All Intellectual Property has artistic value (even raw code), so there can never be true competition and it will never approach cost of production.
Copyright is government granted monopoly designed to _prevent_ competition, your arguments dont hold water.
Sharing the cost of production is a fine idea when there is true competition such as commodities, products built to standards, but anything with artistic value has no equal, there can be no true competition.
All four of the countries you mention try very hard to influence international politics in ways that is beneficial to their interests.
Or are you suggesting that oppression is ok as long its done to other nations, i.e its ok to oppress foreigners, as long as you treat your own people ok ?
But without thinking too hard, it could also be argued that the United States is quite oppressive domestically with its pervasive domestic intelligence gathering, death penalty, restricted travel (no fly list), suspension of Habius Corpus.
"N. Korea and Burma are oppressive dictatorships. It is in no one's desire to let these countries have or retain nuclear weapons."
Indeed, its only oppressive democracies that should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
A more important question is, should fair and relaxed dictatorships/democracies be allowed to have them ? Hmm, but i guess they wouldnt need them, because they dont go around trying to bully people all the time.
Perhaps having nuclear weapons is a sign that a country is oppressive ?
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Article 19, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
If running a a server is seen as 'imparting information through the internet", and the internet is considered a communication media, then UNDHR has got your back...
I guess it could be argued that a server is an an automated way of imparting information through the internet, and that being able to impart information manually (through a client) is enough.
"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." - Article 25. The Universal declaration of human rights.
"There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things." - Vint Cerf
I hear you have been told your wrong on slashdot, i want you to understand that its a part of the human story, it has to happen to everyone eventually. Its important in time like to this to remember that life does go on, that their is no point moping about, blaming others, its not really their fault. Comes a time when people in your position just have to accept that its you that is different, you that is wrong, and that no amount of complaining is going to change that. Now come on RobinEggs, get with the program, accept your mistake and move on.
Slashdot Mirror
+1 Excellent retort, but last paragraph was too long.
I'll try and be more precise in future.
"If I was making money from Free software then of course I would want to get it distributed as widely as possible - that's the point of Free software"
And if the point of creating a song or movies is to share a story then they should want it distributed as widely as possible as well.
Sounds like you want to here from people who care more about the money they make from copyright than they do about their art.
You dont understand art.
"Just once I would like to hear from genuine copyright holders on slashdot who both make a living from their creative works *AND* support un-regulated torrenting and file sharing"
Im sure there are lots of programmers here that make a living from creating software (a creative work) and support file sharing.
Or are you only interested in hearing from copyright holders that dont write Free software ?
Well its on the internet, so it must be true !
I guess
'Someone in the india ministry of defense should google "french military victories'
Top hit for me is below, it describes a string of victories (And some defeats) going back to 387 B.C. In particular Joan of Arc and Napoleon where involved in french victories.
What is you point, other than documenting your typically ignorant American attitude, i bet you call still call them freedom fries at your house.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp
Revealing their adversaries weakness demonstrates their own strength to third parties.
Its good PR.
I think Cisco (linksys) has probably violated the GPL three times, it would be fascinating to them disconnected from the internet, and see how opinions change after that.
I did mention it to an expert but his view was the three strikes had to apply to end users, i dont rally understand why corporations cant be end users, but anyway...
Oh wait, it actually means 50 person years of development effort top recreate busybox.
It would take an extreme GPL hater to go to all that trouble just to avoid having to share.
"You can spend months trying to rewrite busybox"
Output from sloccount for busybox suggests its more like 50 months.
Busybox is highly optimized code, there has been a lot of rewriting to reduce space, without being an expert on how these estimates work, i suggest it underestimates the effort required to create.
Total Physical Source Lines of Code = 192,634
Development Effort Estimate, Person-Years (Person-Months) = 50.12 (601.42)
Schedule Estimate, Years = 2.37 (28.45)
Total Estimated Cost to Develop = $ 6,770,351
"I find it hard to believe that busybox is the ONLY GPL software they are using, so this buys them no "out" of the GPL."
Busybox is pretty much the only project that enforces the GPL, so if they rewrite Busybox, they might get away with GPL violations.
About time someone within the Linux Project grew a pair IMO.
Its hard to have a proper conversation when you skip over fundamental principles, like Intellectual property and real property being different, but anyway...
I agree artists should be able to have a say in the conditions that they release their work.
However, i think your notion of fairness is perverted, how can something be negotiated in fairness if one party has all the rights, and the other has no right to negotiate.
To be 'fair' the conditions a work is released under should meet objectives that government had in mind when they granted individuals the power to license their work, the license should "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Having cartels decide the conditions that a work is released under should put corporate profits ahead of both artists and consumers does not meet the purposes under which the power to license was given to them.
Its not consumers vs artists, its consumers and artists vs greedy corporations.
"if you use someone's work, then you should be willing to pay for their work"
Thats fine when its a zero-sum game, where taking something means someone else loses that much, but intellectual property isnt a zero-sum game.
If work can be reproduced infinitely at practically no cost, should it still cost money ?
How much should we pay to use Pythagorasâ(TM)s work ?
Who decides what is fair ?
Have you considered joining a political party and trying to fix the problem from within ?
This is the section of the parent post i responding to.
"Over time, the prices tend to equalize around a point where (cost of production) = (average revenue from a single purchase)*(number of purchases). Why is this the case? Because of competition."
My point is that argument cannot apply to artistic works.
Good painting get more expensive over time, Vincent van Gogh's painting started of worthless, and over time became priceless.
The reason is that "Cost of Production" cannot factor the value of a unique human life, how much was Steve Jobs worth to Apple, how did he influence the cost of production ?
All Intellectual Property has artistic value (even raw code), so there can never be true competition and it will never approach cost of production.
Copyright is government granted monopoly designed to _prevent_ competition, your arguments dont hold water.
Sharing the cost of production is a fine idea when there is true competition such as commodities, products built to standards, but anything with artistic value has no equal, there can be no true competition.
Agree, another way of saying it is ...
Society should encourage people to work rather than to have worked.
Jacob Appelbaum spoke about self-censorship at his keynote at LCA2012.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMN2360LM_U
In this case, its a company choosing to censor themselves so the government doesnt have to.
President Bush had tried to reform things
"Do, or do not. There is no 'try.'" - Yoda
All four of the countries you mention try very hard to influence international politics in ways that is beneficial to their interests.
Or are you suggesting that oppression is ok as long its done to other nations, i.e its ok to oppress foreigners, as long as you treat your own people ok ?
But without thinking too hard, it could also be argued that the United States is quite oppressive domestically with its pervasive domestic intelligence gathering, death penalty, restricted travel (no fly list), suspension of Habius Corpus.
"N. Korea and Burma are oppressive dictatorships. It is in no one's desire to let these countries have or retain nuclear weapons."
Indeed, its only oppressive democracies that should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
A more important question is, should fair and relaxed dictatorships/democracies be allowed to have them ? Hmm, but i guess they wouldnt need them, because they dont go around trying to bully people all the time.
Perhaps having nuclear weapons is a sign that a country is oppressive ?
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Article 19, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
If running a a server is seen as 'imparting information through the internet", and the internet is considered a communication media, then UNDHR has got your back...
I guess it could be argued that a server is an an automated way of imparting information through the internet, and that being able to impart information manually (through a client) is enough.
Comes down to bias i guess.
(I should have added)
The internet isnt a technology, its a product of technology, similar to food, clothing housing.
To say people have a right to food, isnt to say people have a right frying pans, ovens and refrigerators.
To say people have a right to clothing isnt to say they have a right to weaving looms (and whatever clothing technology they use to make cloths)
People dont have a right to a Hammer and Nails, but they do have a right to shelter.
The right to Internet Access is the right of access to an inexpensive global communications medium.
Vint you can relax, people arent trying to claim rights over 'your stuff', go back to sleep.
"(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." - Article 25. The Universal declaration of human rights.
"There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things." - Vint Cerf
Mate, stay out politics, your out of your depth.
"since it has been proven a few decades ago that the human mind is in fact incapable of rational thinking."
Rationalizing that humans arent rational is to prove oneself wrong.
Dear RobinEggs;
I hear you have been told your wrong on slashdot, i want you to understand that its a part of the human story, it has to happen to everyone eventually. Its important in time like to this to remember that life does go on, that their is no point moping about, blaming others, its not really their fault.
Comes a time when people in your position just have to accept that its you that is different, you that is wrong, and that no amount of complaining is going to change that. Now come on RobinEggs, get with the program, accept your mistake and move on.