next tries wouldnt be that good maybe. but, in the end what would it boil down to would be that the artists would make money as much as their fans see them worth.
when constitutions around the world were written, there was no kind of imagination of a monopoly/stranglehold a software lockdown could create in regard to liberties. it wasnt even fairy talk.
you can just 'not buy' windows. there are so many organizations, businesses, individuals locked down to windows that, in order to be a functioning business/organization/individual, you have to use windows.
it affects all fields of life. it needs to be regulated. microsoft either should accept regulation, or accept forced interoperability cooperation and make their software (therefore all things running on it) interoperable, ending the lockdown.
if you noticed, i also mentioned publishers. the word publisher covers all kind of fuktards ranging from controlling publication of scientific papers to books.
Copyright exists to ensure that everyone in the creative world from the artist to the record label, from the independent film producer to the TV program maker - can choose how their creations are distributed and get fairly rewarded for their work.
the shittiest lie, shittiest save-face, filthiest attempt to cover real intentions since julius caesar said he was running for consul 'for the people'.
creative artists do not get SHIT from copyrights. independent film producers dont have the funds to pursue millions of worth litigations. the only groups that are benefiting from copyright on the face of earth at this time and age are a few major music labels, movie studios and some publishing houses. which give the original creators CENTS over dozens of dollars of sales.
go shove your half assed justice tirade up your ass. there is nothing just in it.
i emancipate myself from the grammar nazizm you people hold so dearly. im not english, american or australian. that's the way i speak, take it, or leave it.
killing millions. yea. in a civil war. a war. honorably.
beats the hell outta what the shitfaces in the south doing. living a life that is built by the most despicable forms of exploitation known to mankind - slavery.
sorry pal. bud. guy.
i cant bear myself to have any kind of pity for the fuckfaces that fought for the slaving south. well deserved, i say.
* this 'flamebait' message with strong language social messages was brought to you from antalya, mediterranean, turkey *
That only works with a government that can appease the more wealthy landowners and businessmen. Without a government system where do these wealthy landowners and businessmen get their "power" ? You seem to be ascribing power inherently to these wealthy people, but you don't explain where that comes from or what kind of power they would have. The power to make people buy their products? Your ideas don't make sense.
someone already sarcastically replied to this. but ill put more elaborate reply.
there is a certain level in which a business establishment/corporation/conglomerate goes beyond a money making business, and becomes a part of daily life.
when a certain interest controls a certain percentage of the supplies that are needed for a certain activity in life, through legitimately gained market share or uncompetitively acquired monopoly, they become practical controllers of that aspect of life. this is mitigated ONLY by laws and regulations that are put forth through government, by the people. if, regulations are forfeit, then those interests become the de facto rulers of those aspects of life. their control as a single conglomerate, or as a closely knit interest group may not span sufficient number of aspects of life at that point, to be able to fully control the country. however, it is definite that just like feudal lordships evolved from the ashes of roman empire in the following chaos, the stronger groups will create alliances and cartels that will eventually beat or assimilate other groups and in the end form an authority out of themselves. since at that point we would have already gotten rid of regulations and laws, there would be nothing preventing this.
some may err in here, saying that 'if we put antitrust laws, it will be prevented'.
mankind is not stupid. people are smart. there are numerous ways to go around any kind of vague antitrust law you may come up with. like in the case of net neutrality in which at&t et al can oust any competition to their main services by asking high prices from competitors of other services they also render, and doing special contracts to the parties close to them, innumerable methods can be found to circumvent antitrust laws. because human kind is an innovative bunch.
couple this with the horrible fact that 'private security companies', which boil down to nothing more than a private mercenary army were tested in iraq in the form of blackwater et al, you can see how far the consequences of such braindead 'let them be' can be.
Great! how fortunate that we have a method to determine which people we choose to be our enforcers are going to be honest and fair and will be never be biased or corrupted by external influences. oh wait, that's not human.
this is the best we have, until we develop direct democracy. what you are proposing as 'solution' is anarchy that will evolve to feudalism.
people without sufficient knowledge of human civilization's history.
the main factor which let us come out of caves and ascend to space was our invention of social structures and rules, eventually, government.
leave that aside, the social dynamics of the world is such that, if there isnt a proper, rule enforcing central authority, multiple local power groups start trying to establish their own power over others. you cant change that.
the only possibility of there being freedom, leave aside a 'free' market, is to make sure that principles of fairness, equality, honesty and other modern values and practices are enforced everywhere through an authority that belongs to EVERY citizen.
what you libertarians so foolishly advocate is just the preceding years of feudal system. an environment of no central authority, which soon evolves into a feudal hierarchical system in the resulting power struggle -> wealthier and more powerful landowners/businessman becoming lords.
then it was through swords and spears that were financed through local economic power, today it would be through other means financed through economic power. the only difference would be that while in those times you had dukes, today you would have CEOS.
this is what happens when you let go of rules and regulations. the groups who want to prosper at the expense of everyone else goes berserk, and even tries to rob you of what you pay for.
balance is the key. government has to be a regulatory tool, a heavy handed hammer of ALL people against groups who seek privilege. that includes groups that seek to exploit free market principles by yelping and wanking 'deregulation' in order to propagate scams like wall street did in this hedge fund fraud.
before any holistic economists try to yelp the same criminal 'regulation is bad' line that alan greenspan et all yelped in the last 20 years, i want to warn them ; before you have any chance of doing that, you will have to explain me why we shouldnt let go of judiciary, police, and criminal law, if we were to let go of regulations in business.
because, they are in the same status - both are regulatory, order providing arrangements of rules and laws to ensure that noone pulls any shit on anyone else.
another time for warez scene to save the liberties big buck tries to deny people.
no, this is not an uninformed zealot rant, and i am able to elaborate it with historic proofs and examples, but it is a friday night -> you'll have to do with your own memory.
government control comes in the form of regulations. regulating internet in order to ensure that noone discriminates against any potential competitor through their isp subsidiaries, is a form of control.
Slashdot Mirror
we need blondes. you have to find a way to create more swedish women.
now that you mention it, world also needs more swedish women.
radiohead tried, and they made a killing.
next tries wouldnt be that good maybe. but, in the end what would it boil down to would be that the artists would make money as much as their fans see them worth.
these were what some people were saying in slashdot back a while ago about twitter, ruby and whatnot.
when constitutions around the world were written, there was no kind of imagination of a monopoly/stranglehold a software lockdown could create in regard to liberties. it wasnt even fairy talk.
you can just 'not buy' windows. there are so many organizations, businesses, individuals locked down to windows that, in order to be a functioning business/organization/individual, you have to use windows.
it affects all fields of life. it needs to be regulated. microsoft either should accept regulation, or accept forced interoperability cooperation and make their software (therefore all things running on it) interoperable, ending the lockdown.
we need more of those people on this planet.
if you noticed, i also mentioned publishers. the word publisher covers all kind of fuktards ranging from controlling publication of scientific papers to books.
Copyright exists to ensure that everyone in the creative world from the artist to the record label, from the independent film producer to the TV program maker - can choose how their creations are distributed and get fairly rewarded for their work.
the shittiest lie, shittiest save-face, filthiest attempt to cover real intentions since julius caesar said he was running for consul 'for the people'.
creative artists do not get SHIT from copyrights. independent film producers dont have the funds to pursue millions of worth litigations. the only groups that are benefiting from copyright on the face of earth at this time and age are a few major music labels, movie studios and some publishing houses. which give the original creators CENTS over dozens of dollars of sales.
go shove your half assed justice tirade up your ass. there is nothing just in it.
i emancipate myself from the grammar nazizm you people hold so dearly. im not english, american or australian. that's the way i speak, take it, or leave it.
to which experts can take the contested and faulty articles, and the editions can be decided by input from admins, experts, and people.
you cant fight something that is solidly proven, and anyone still fighting such an edit will probably be extremists/radicals in wikipedia.
the success of internet is based on its freedom and anonymity.
How many times russian spacecraft will go broken before it fails to reach Mars ?
i say 6.
killing millions. yea. in a civil war. a war. honorably.
beats the hell outta what the shitfaces in the south doing. living a life that is built by the most despicable forms of exploitation known to mankind - slavery.
sorry pal. bud. guy.
i cant bear myself to have any kind of pity for the fuckfaces that fought for the slaving south. well deserved, i say.
* this 'flamebait' message with strong language social messages was brought to you from antalya, mediterranean, turkey *
let people see another facet of live in 19th century
That only works with a government that can appease the more wealthy landowners and businessmen. Without a government system where do these wealthy landowners and businessmen get their "power" ? You seem to be ascribing power inherently to these wealthy people, but you don't explain where that comes from or what kind of power they would have. The power to make people buy their products? Your ideas don't make sense.
someone already sarcastically replied to this. but ill put more elaborate reply.
there is a certain level in which a business establishment/corporation/conglomerate goes beyond a money making business, and becomes a part of daily life.
when a certain interest controls a certain percentage of the supplies that are needed for a certain activity in life, through legitimately gained market share or uncompetitively acquired monopoly, they become practical controllers of that aspect of life. this is mitigated ONLY by laws and regulations that are put forth through government, by the people. if, regulations are forfeit, then those interests become the de facto rulers of those aspects of life. their control as a single conglomerate, or as a closely knit interest group may not span sufficient number of aspects of life at that point, to be able to fully control the country. however, it is definite that just like feudal lordships evolved from the ashes of roman empire in the following chaos, the stronger groups will create alliances and cartels that will eventually beat or assimilate other groups and in the end form an authority out of themselves. since at that point we would have already gotten rid of regulations and laws, there would be nothing preventing this.
some may err in here, saying that 'if we put antitrust laws, it will be prevented'.
mankind is not stupid. people are smart. there are numerous ways to go around any kind of vague antitrust law you may come up with. like in the case of net neutrality in which at&t et al can oust any competition to their main services by asking high prices from competitors of other services they also render, and doing special contracts to the parties close to them, innumerable methods can be found to circumvent antitrust laws. because human kind is an innovative bunch.
couple this with the horrible fact that 'private security companies', which boil down to nothing more than a private mercenary army were tested in iraq in the form of blackwater et al, you can see how far the consequences of such braindead 'let them be' can be.
Great! how fortunate that we have a method to determine which people we choose to be our enforcers are going to be honest and fair and will be never be biased or corrupted by external influences. oh wait, that's not human.
this is the best we have, until we develop direct democracy. what you are proposing as 'solution' is anarchy that will evolve to feudalism.
a regulatory tool that belongs to ALL people can be properly ensured to remain in control of the people through increased transparency.
people without sufficient knowledge of human civilization's history.
the main factor which let us come out of caves and ascend to space was our invention of social structures and rules, eventually, government.
leave that aside, the social dynamics of the world is such that, if there isnt a proper, rule enforcing central authority, multiple local power groups start trying to establish their own power over others. you cant change that.
the only possibility of there being freedom, leave aside a 'free' market, is to make sure that principles of fairness, equality, honesty and other modern values and practices are enforced everywhere through an authority that belongs to EVERY citizen.
what you libertarians so foolishly advocate is just the preceding years of feudal system. an environment of no central authority, which soon evolves into a feudal hierarchical system in the resulting power struggle -> wealthier and more powerful landowners/businessman becoming lords.
then it was through swords and spears that were financed through local economic power, today it would be through other means financed through economic power. the only difference would be that while in those times you had dukes, today you would have CEOS.
this is what happens when you let go of rules and regulations. the groups who want to prosper at the expense of everyone else goes berserk, and even tries to rob you of what you pay for.
balance is the key. government has to be a regulatory tool, a heavy handed hammer of ALL people against groups who seek privilege. that includes groups that seek to exploit free market principles by yelping and wanking 'deregulation' in order to propagate scams like wall street did in this hedge fund fraud.
before any holistic economists try to yelp the same criminal 'regulation is bad' line that alan greenspan et all yelped in the last 20 years, i want to warn them ; before you have any chance of doing that, you will have to explain me why we shouldnt let go of judiciary, police, and criminal law, if we were to let go of regulations in business.
because, they are in the same status - both are regulatory, order providing arrangements of rules and laws to ensure that noone pulls any shit on anyone else.
i fail to see the same way.
another time for warez scene to save the liberties big buck tries to deny people.
no, this is not an uninformed zealot rant, and i am able to elaborate it with historic proofs and examples, but it is a friday night -> you'll have to do with your own memory.
you can just not buy apple, and they can shove their locked-in product up their butt, until they get their lesson.
WHY ?!?
government control comes in the form of regulations. regulating internet in order to ensure that noone discriminates against any potential competitor through their isp subsidiaries, is a form of control.
isps built the infrastructure on PUBLIC land with PUBLIC subsidies. its NOT theirs.
what's more, if it is to affect millions' liberties, your property rights are indeed out of the window.
the needs of the many comes before the needs of the few. get this in your fucking head.
if you feed the 'child porn' 'intellectual property' bullshit to any good but non technical person, they will buy any bullshit you feed them.