How exactly are they going to sell something which is, essentially, free? Isn't that the complaint about piracy? What you describe might be a temporary state of affairs, but it is unlikely to last. The RIAA/MPAA need copyright to keep a hold of the market. Without it, people will discover the alternatives. They are as we speak, with or without abolition.
Further, I think the companies that did produce software would adopt more of a Red Hat sort of model of selling support and specific changes to programs. Software companies would be less about making and marketing a product, and more about providing services for open products. There would no longer be an incentive to make things closed-proprietary, so open-free would likely become standard even without the GPL. There of course are going to be exceptions, but that model certainly can (and does) work. I see no reason we need copyright at all in the software sphere.
No. But if you could, house builders would try to pass legislation to make sure you couldn't. If replicators were invented tomorrow, the current train of thought would make them illegal.
There is an old saying. If there is a will, there is a way. Maybe the current entertainment industry needs to die before the next can be born. Certainly, we've already seen what can happen in software with open source, a model which has slowly made some progress into other areas.
In any case, I do not value entrainment more than free speech and the right to communicate and share ideas. Maybe you should reconsider your stance if you do.
"The comment was modded up. When it's a case of a GPL violation, the violators who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers are childish and entitled."
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Apple (used as an example only) rips off some piece of Linux and then slaps DRM on it and sells it as part of their mono-culture protected by lawsuits and patent trolling, then they ARE "childish and entitled," even if you oppose copyright. They are childish and entitled by their own standards, if not by some higher concept of consistency. What you'll never see on slashdot is a story about GPL-using developers suing BSD developers for copying parts of code over in a way that is maybe not 100% kosher, which is a much more comparable situation to what the copyright industry engages in daily.
Abolish copyright. We gave it a 200 year trial, and it has not served its purpose of making artists self-sufficient. Instead, it has only further entrenched the patron model by giving the patrons legal teeth, handing our culture over to corporations and the insanely rich. Further, we're seeing more and more that free speech and copyright are completely incompatible. It's time we decide which we care more about: a fictitious emotion-backed economic system, or basic human rights.
The IRA didn't (doesn't?) seek to kill civilians, just cripple the government. It's pretty obvious from their actions, such as sending warnings. They did mess up a few times, though.
"A tricky thing for Wiki to do on short notice as they typically govern by consensus."
Yes. Usually if Wikipedia (ie Jimbo) wants to do something, they appoint enough people who are for it into voting positions for it to pass. That's hard on short notice. Not that this is a bad proposal in this case, but to say Wikipedia's administration "typically govern by consensus" is delusional. They manipulate the bureaucratic system they created, until they get what they wanted rubber-stamped.
You keep saying it. It keeps being inaccurate. I will not go into great depth as I already have several times and you choose to ignore what I say. However, I will summarize for the benefit of others.
Using the GPL does not mean you support copyright as an idea, or support the GPL as an end. Using and supporting the GPL only requires that you think it is currently the best option. Using copyright to remove powers from other copyright holders (and by releasing what you create into the public domain, you are simply feeding them) does not imply any sort of conflict of interest or lack of coherency. It simply means you are being pragmatic.
Copyright will not be abolished or even lessened any time soon; it is going to get worse before it gets better. Until that changes, the GPL is going to be posed as an option as how to try to regain some semblance of sanity. It does not matter if you, Linus, Stallman, etc. seek to apply it that way or not, some people will, and I am behind it. Those you complain about are also behind it. The fact you cannot see that other people might have more nuanced views of the matter than seeing copyright as an end, seeing the GPL as an end, or seeing abolition as an end, and simply acting in the most impulsive way towards whatever end they choose, is not a problem with those you complain about: it is a problem with you.
Throwing it out completely is the only answer. Copyright, if left, will simply return to where it is now. We have seen a steady progression from the copyright clause of the constitution, into SOPA and perpetual copyright terms. If this does not prove that the ability to own an idea is inherently flawed, I am not sure what kind of shock it will take to knock off your blinders.
Creating the about to own ideas, words, and pictures is immoral. I am sorry, that's as simple as it is, and that is the root of the problem. You have no right to benefit from people reading what you wrote, which is the only defense ever given by supporters of this form of property, but people certainly have a right to read what you wrote, and to tell others what you wrote. Ideas are not property.
SOPA and the DMCA are the direct product of the idea of owning information. The single greatest attack upon our rights is justified by protecting the rights of those who have sold their souls to faceless corporations. The only thing copyright does is further solidify the very system it was intended to eliminate, the patronage of the wealthy.
This cannot stand. Copyright must be abolished, or our freedoms to speech, our own physical property, and our own thoughts will be the cost we pay to uphold it. "Intellectual property" - I couldn't put it better than their preferred name for the immoral system. If you support copyright, you support slavery of the knowledgeable and creative.
So they were poor before or after their current government? You seem to imply that third world countries would automatically be rich, if not for their corrupt government (does that translate to "does not like the US" by any chance?). Not that I would defend their corruption; quite the opposite, it needs fixed, although I think the issue is the same in both the west and non-west: the tyranny of the wealthy minority. We hide it behind corporations, they do not. We are wealthier on average... because we are wealthier in general. The problem is essentially the same, you just don't notice it because you're confused by the larger number of tyrants compared to small, poor countries, and because you are currently being treated well by western society. That can change in an instant, though.
In every other sphere, changing your views is a sign of intelligence. In politics, changing your views usually means pandering to a different base. It's worth pointing out that in almost every case, the new views subscribe to a party line and are less original than their first set of views.
Technocracy means doing things that make sense, without attention to ideology (or necessarily, public opinion). This is certainly something the US is in serious need of. One only need to consider SOPA and the myriad of other failed bills intended to "fix" the country to see why engineers would want to include reason and proof in the process for once, over outcry and dollars.
However, I'd not say I lean libertarian at all. Corporations are currently the largest source of corruption and the largest threat to personal rights in the western world. Right now, there are a number of corporations with far more power over you than the government. So I am dismayed at the common libertarian diatribes that everything will be alright, if we just get rid of government. What fills the hole left by government?
I would say I lean much more towards European socialism. I don't believe in survival or the fittest or deep class structures. If inheritance and embezzlement are the two biggest sources of wealth in the country, then the country is in the wrong and needs to be repaired. Further, there are many times when something just does not belong in private hands. Corporations naturally are greedy and corrupting influences, and are nowhere near as efficient as the libertarian types like to think; government can be corrupted, but is not inherently anything negative.
My primary concern is that given my definition of Technocracy above, it has the potential to become all sorts of bad things. Which is why I think anyone who actually goes out to claim they are a Technocrat needs to ultimately follow a few rules:
1. The goal of society is to provide the greatest average good for its members.
2. Communication should always be free. Censorship is always wrong.
3. Nothing should be restricted on emotional or religious basis.
If even half of politicians followed those three rules, we'd be living in a far better world today. It is time we start forcing them to do so.
What about monopolies? Natural or simply market-ownership. You do realize that's the inevitable result of pure free market economics, right? Especially the deregulation people like you support? If not, you can take a look at history and you'll see.
Standards which must be legally followed must be in the public domain, freely accessible. I don't really see any arguments against this - it's pretty obviously common sense. That they are profitable now is moot, because the aforementioned situation is not true. If they cannot provide that outcome and be profitable, which is why you asked for an alternative, they should be nationalized.
So what is your suggestion? Maybe you should shut up and stop complaining about people who are doing something, no matter how small. Ultimately, you're part of the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
How exactly are they going to sell something which is, essentially, free? Isn't that the complaint about piracy? What you describe might be a temporary state of affairs, but it is unlikely to last. The RIAA/MPAA need copyright to keep a hold of the market. Without it, people will discover the alternatives. They are as we speak, with or without abolition.
Further, I think the companies that did produce software would adopt more of a Red Hat sort of model of selling support and specific changes to programs. Software companies would be less about making and marketing a product, and more about providing services for open products. There would no longer be an incentive to make things closed-proprietary, so open-free would likely become standard even without the GPL. There of course are going to be exceptions, but that model certainly can (and does) work. I see no reason we need copyright at all in the software sphere.
The GPL is a means, not an end. Please see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2612412&cid=38648850 where I addressed the issue for the nth time already.
No. But if you could, house builders would try to pass legislation to make sure you couldn't. If replicators were invented tomorrow, the current train of thought would make them illegal.
There is an old saying. If there is a will, there is a way. Maybe the current entertainment industry needs to die before the next can be born. Certainly, we've already seen what can happen in software with open source, a model which has slowly made some progress into other areas.
In any case, I do not value entrainment more than free speech and the right to communicate and share ideas. Maybe you should reconsider your stance if you do.
"The comment was modded up. When it's a case of a GPL violation, the violators who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers are childish and entitled."
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Apple (used as an example only) rips off some piece of Linux and then slaps DRM on it and sells it as part of their mono-culture protected by lawsuits and patent trolling, then they ARE "childish and entitled," even if you oppose copyright. They are childish and entitled by their own standards, if not by some higher concept of consistency. What you'll never see on slashdot is a story about GPL-using developers suing BSD developers for copying parts of code over in a way that is maybe not 100% kosher, which is a much more comparable situation to what the copyright industry engages in daily.
Abolish copyright. We gave it a 200 year trial, and it has not served its purpose of making artists self-sufficient. Instead, it has only further entrenched the patron model by giving the patrons legal teeth, handing our culture over to corporations and the insanely rich. Further, we're seeing more and more that free speech and copyright are completely incompatible. It's time we decide which we care more about: a fictitious emotion-backed economic system, or basic human rights.
"Anyone can learn to write a "Hello World" program but that doesn't make them a software professional."
Of course, neither does an Electrical Engineering weeder class.
The IRA didn't (doesn't?) seek to kill civilians, just cripple the government. It's pretty obvious from their actions, such as sending warnings. They did mess up a few times, though.
For those who do not believe me...
Rock On Rockall - this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall
Hands up Trousers Down
The Helicopter Song - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Mountjoy_Prison_helicopter_escape
Fenian Record Player
If anything, the music industry should probably be more afraid of Irish music than of the Irish government!
Waiting for a Wolfe Tones song about the valiant IRA fight against EMI.
It's funny because it will happen...
"A tricky thing for Wiki to do on short notice as they typically govern by consensus."
Yes. Usually if Wikipedia (ie Jimbo) wants to do something, they appoint enough people who are for it into voting positions for it to pass. That's hard on short notice. Not that this is a bad proposal in this case, but to say Wikipedia's administration "typically govern by consensus" is delusional. They manipulate the bureaucratic system they created, until they get what they wanted rubber-stamped.
You keep saying it. It keeps being inaccurate. I will not go into great depth as I already have several times and you choose to ignore what I say. However, I will summarize for the benefit of others.
Using the GPL does not mean you support copyright as an idea, or support the GPL as an end. Using and supporting the GPL only requires that you think it is currently the best option. Using copyright to remove powers from other copyright holders (and by releasing what you create into the public domain, you are simply feeding them) does not imply any sort of conflict of interest or lack of coherency. It simply means you are being pragmatic.
Copyright will not be abolished or even lessened any time soon; it is going to get worse before it gets better. Until that changes, the GPL is going to be posed as an option as how to try to regain some semblance of sanity. It does not matter if you, Linus, Stallman, etc. seek to apply it that way or not, some people will, and I am behind it. Those you complain about are also behind it. The fact you cannot see that other people might have more nuanced views of the matter than seeing copyright as an end, seeing the GPL as an end, or seeing abolition as an end, and simply acting in the most impulsive way towards whatever end they choose, is not a problem with those you complain about: it is a problem with you.
Try the pollution involved in making solar panels or solar plants.
Throwing it out completely is the only answer. Copyright, if left, will simply return to where it is now. We have seen a steady progression from the copyright clause of the constitution, into SOPA and perpetual copyright terms. If this does not prove that the ability to own an idea is inherently flawed, I am not sure what kind of shock it will take to knock off your blinders.
Creating the about to own ideas, words, and pictures is immoral. I am sorry, that's as simple as it is, and that is the root of the problem. You have no right to benefit from people reading what you wrote, which is the only defense ever given by supporters of this form of property, but people certainly have a right to read what you wrote, and to tell others what you wrote. Ideas are not property.
SOPA and the DMCA are the direct product of the idea of owning information. The single greatest attack upon our rights is justified by protecting the rights of those who have sold their souls to faceless corporations. The only thing copyright does is further solidify the very system it was intended to eliminate, the patronage of the wealthy.
This cannot stand. Copyright must be abolished, or our freedoms to speech, our own physical property, and our own thoughts will be the cost we pay to uphold it. "Intellectual property" - I couldn't put it better than their preferred name for the immoral system. If you support copyright, you support slavery of the knowledgeable and creative.
So they were poor before or after their current government? You seem to imply that third world countries would automatically be rich, if not for their corrupt government (does that translate to "does not like the US" by any chance?). Not that I would defend their corruption; quite the opposite, it needs fixed, although I think the issue is the same in both the west and non-west: the tyranny of the wealthy minority. We hide it behind corporations, they do not. We are wealthier on average... because we are wealthier in general. The problem is essentially the same, you just don't notice it because you're confused by the larger number of tyrants compared to small, poor countries, and because you are currently being treated well by western society. That can change in an instant, though.
In every other sphere, changing your views is a sign of intelligence. In politics, changing your views usually means pandering to a different base. It's worth pointing out that in almost every case, the new views subscribe to a party line and are less original than their first set of views.
Technocracy means doing things that make sense, without attention to ideology (or necessarily, public opinion). This is certainly something the US is in serious need of. One only need to consider SOPA and the myriad of other failed bills intended to "fix" the country to see why engineers would want to include reason and proof in the process for once, over outcry and dollars.
However, I'd not say I lean libertarian at all. Corporations are currently the largest source of corruption and the largest threat to personal rights in the western world. Right now, there are a number of corporations with far more power over you than the government. So I am dismayed at the common libertarian diatribes that everything will be alright, if we just get rid of government. What fills the hole left by government?
I would say I lean much more towards European socialism. I don't believe in survival or the fittest or deep class structures. If inheritance and embezzlement are the two biggest sources of wealth in the country, then the country is in the wrong and needs to be repaired. Further, there are many times when something just does not belong in private hands. Corporations naturally are greedy and corrupting influences, and are nowhere near as efficient as the libertarian types like to think; government can be corrupted, but is not inherently anything negative.
My primary concern is that given my definition of Technocracy above, it has the potential to become all sorts of bad things. Which is why I think anyone who actually goes out to claim they are a Technocrat needs to ultimately follow a few rules:
1. The goal of society is to provide the greatest average good for its members.
2. Communication should always be free. Censorship is always wrong.
3. Nothing should be restricted on emotional or religious basis.
If even half of politicians followed those three rules, we'd be living in a far better world today. It is time we start forcing them to do so.
What about monopolies? Natural or simply market-ownership. You do realize that's the inevitable result of pure free market economics, right? Especially the deregulation people like you support? If not, you can take a look at history and you'll see.
Standards which must be legally followed must be in the public domain, freely accessible. I don't really see any arguments against this - it's pretty obviously common sense. That they are profitable now is moot, because the aforementioned situation is not true. If they cannot provide that outcome and be profitable, which is why you asked for an alternative, they should be nationalized.
Is that an argument for controlled platforms, or against yourself?
Nationalization. If they are not profitable, but their services are required, that is the proper answer.
Very true. They are still on the wrong side. I only regret I had already been boycotting these industries for years, and so cannot do anything now.
So what is your suggestion? Maybe you should shut up and stop complaining about people who are doing something, no matter how small. Ultimately, you're part of the problem.