Take that file-swappers!
A big blow to parasitic companies..
Monday, June 27, 2005 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
Today was a big win for those of us who value intellectual property. Companies like Grokster and Kazaa and others who profit off of enabling people to conveniently steal software, music, videos, etc. are now on notice thanks to today's Supreme Court ruling on the issue.
The Supreme court found that peer-to-peer providers are indeed liable for how users make use of their network. I for one am pretty pleased with this outcome on a number of levels.
A few years ago, Napster took the world by storm. Its developer was hailed as a visionary and the company became a household name. But many developers, including us, were pretty unhappy with the whole thing. Automated piracy is not revolutionary or innovative. Many companies (including Stardock) had thought of such file sharing concepts in the past but did not invest in them because it would be difficult to keep people from pirating. But companies and individuals with fewer scruples not only went forward with such ideas but profited greatly from them and won both fame and fortune.
These companies exist, IMO, purely to profit from people pirating other people's work. Perhaps these guys will find real jobs now and earn money honestly.
The Supreme Court wrote:
"There is no evidence that either company (Grokster or StreamCast) made an effort to filter copyrighted material from users' downloads or otherwise impede the sharing of copyrighted files," Souter wrote. "Each company showed itself to be aiming to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement, the market comprising former Napster users."
While the court will, in future cases, need to clarify some of the elements of its ruling, I think this is a big win for people who create intellectual property. I don't have a huge angst about piracy per se, but I have a lot of angst about companies in the business of profiting from it.
 |
|
Page 4 of 11 | |
|
|---|
Ka806
Reply #62 Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:02 PM
I dunno why people always sit there thinking Im some teenager who just want to copy things and is not in risk of this happening to me. Ill tell you a bit about myself. Im a software engineer....I do work on commercial and government products.....I do like to get money....I hate patents.....I dont believe in IP.....I love copyrights....I think the GNU is the best license ever... Its hard for me to stray away from a good argument.
I do work very hard and some of my stuff does get taken against my wishes. But I still hold these views strong.
Reply #62 Thursday, June 30, 2005 12:02 PM
| Ahh, in a perfect society you can just browse out of this page and free your self from the soap boxes. And I would love to see your reaction if you was ever to create something of your own to earn a living and I would come along and take what you have made and give it out for free. Hell, I can even pass it as my own creation since you dont believe in Intellectual Property. A problem is not a problem until it becomes yours. |
I dunno why people always sit there thinking Im some teenager who just want to copy things and is not in risk of this happening to me. Ill tell you a bit about myself. Im a software engineer....I do work on commercial and government products.....I do like to get money....I hate patents.....I dont believe in IP.....I love copyrights....I think the GNU is the best license ever... Its hard for me to stray away from a good argument.
I do work very hard and some of my stuff does get taken against my wishes. But I still hold these views strong.
r@mJET
Reply #63 Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:23 PM
Reply #63 Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:23 PM
SO video recorder manufacturers are resposible for all content that may be taped?.
Ka806
Reply #64 Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:30 PM
Ummm no its up to the law. And some countries dont impose Intellectual Propety laws. If you dont believe that such and such intellect is property, then whos right is it to say that the author can charge for it. Its not that hard of a concept to understand. Even in the US it is the LAW'S decision to enforce intellectual property, not the artist. I dont buy music because of I want a piece of this guys intellect (that makes no sense to me). I buy it for my right to copy (copy as in listen, and actually show respect to the name that shoved out the music).
Oh and yes i take back what i said about patents, that was general use of it. I dont like when patents are applied to intellectual property is what I mean (software music movies etc.)
Reply #64 Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:30 PM
This descition is up to the artist/creator not up to the general public to decide what is free to view/observed/obtained. As an artist it's my sole descition to create something of my own imagination using my hands and tools to render a final product and it is that same determination that will make me choose to share it for free with the general public. But if I choose to create any art piece for the purpose of profit, there is none that can tell me I can't do that because it should be free nor gives anyone the right to take that piece, reproduce it and distribute it with out my concent. This is the fine line that separates those with moral values and respect for others and those with lack of it. |
Ummm no its up to the law. And some countries dont impose Intellectual Propety laws. If you dont believe that such and such intellect is property, then whos right is it to say that the author can charge for it. Its not that hard of a concept to understand. Even in the US it is the LAW'S decision to enforce intellectual property, not the artist. I dont buy music because of I want a piece of this guys intellect (that makes no sense to me). I buy it for my right to copy (copy as in listen, and actually show respect to the name that shoved out the music).
Oh and yes i take back what i said about patents, that was general use of it. I dont like when patents are applied to intellectual property is what I mean (software music movies etc.)
MountainDragon
Reply #65 Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:40 PM
So, by your logic, because some countries practice genocide, then that makes it okay, as long as you don't believe it's wrong?
And the term Intellectual Property (as I understand it) just means "I created it, but it's not something you can hold in your hand, but something you can hold in your mind." So, what is the difference between that and copyright, which says about the same thing, and speaks to the rights pursuant to that claim. It seems to me that the concept of Intellectual Property is the foundation for Copyright.
I guess I really don't understand your perspective. (Do you?)
Reply #65 Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:40 PM
| And some countries dont impose Intellectual Propety laws. If you dont believe that such and such intellect is property, then whos right is it to say that the author can charge for it. Its not that hard of a concept to understand. |
So, by your logic, because some countries practice genocide, then that makes it okay, as long as you don't believe it's wrong?
And the term Intellectual Property (as I understand it) just means "I created it, but it's not something you can hold in your hand, but something you can hold in your mind." So, what is the difference between that and copyright, which says about the same thing, and speaks to the rights pursuant to that claim. It seems to me that the concept of Intellectual Property is the foundation for Copyright.
I guess I really don't understand your perspective. (Do you?)
Apocalypse_67
Reply #66 Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:41 PM
WRONG. The law cannot make me give anything I create for free. It is my sole descition to do so.
Reply #66 Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:41 PM
| Ummm no its up to the law. |
WRONG. The law cannot make me give anything I create for free. It is my sole descition to do so.
Bichur
Reply #67 Thursday, June 30, 2005 2:41 PM
If they think not believing means it doesn't exist, then they probable still haven't figured out the reality of peek-a-boo.
But hey, if it actually does work, then I will no longer hold any belief in physical property. Just don't get pissed when I take all your stuff.
I completely agree. But it dooesn't mean they can steal it.
Reply #67 Thursday, June 30, 2005 2:41 PM
| Its just that some people dont believe in the notion of Intellectual Property, |
If they think not believing means it doesn't exist, then they probable still haven't figured out the reality of peek-a-boo.
But hey, if it actually does work, then I will no longer hold any belief in physical property. Just don't get pissed when I take all your stuff.
| If someone dooesnt feel they should pay for an artistic creation, then they shouldnt. |
I completely agree. But it dooesn't mean they can steal it.
S3vyn
Reply #68 Thursday, June 30, 2005 2:47 PM
Reply #68 Thursday, June 30, 2005 2:47 PM
Seems like the internet has made people even more entitlement minded. It also seems that the people who are arguing against "intellectual property" own very little of it.
In order for the American society to work each individual must spend the majority of their day doing something to acquire money or goods (generally money which will later be exchanged for goods, in turn contributing to the cycle). If you take the money out of their daily equation they are forced to find something different to do which will provide the money or goods they need. If they do that, the original task will no longer be done (as in no software, music, whatever).
You simply cannot hold the amount of money someone makes for a given service over their head as a "penalty" or justification for not paying for the service you are expected to pay for. After all, supply and demand dictates prices one may charge for services.
When someone says "everyone should get everything, everything should be given to me because I can't/won't do what it takes to acquire it as intended" is simply voicing an "entitlement" attitude ("I exist therefore I have earned the right to a luxurious lifestyle just like my friend the hard working [enter profession here] does without putting in the same work."). What we are talking about, generally, is software, music and video which has cost the creators (sometimes) millions of dollars to create. Saying they shouldn't profit from their research, development and marketing goes against what America stands for... which is the right and ability to experience financial gain from original thinking.
For those demanding free software, I see very, very, very few items created around here with The Gimp 2 or other open source software which is INTENDED to free. There are free, legal alternatives out there, use them or pay a LICENSING (not ownership) fee so we can be sure those industry leading software suites continue to release new versions with new functionality.
In order for the American society to work each individual must spend the majority of their day doing something to acquire money or goods (generally money which will later be exchanged for goods, in turn contributing to the cycle). If you take the money out of their daily equation they are forced to find something different to do which will provide the money or goods they need. If they do that, the original task will no longer be done (as in no software, music, whatever).
You simply cannot hold the amount of money someone makes for a given service over their head as a "penalty" or justification for not paying for the service you are expected to pay for. After all, supply and demand dictates prices one may charge for services.
When someone says "everyone should get everything, everything should be given to me because I can't/won't do what it takes to acquire it as intended" is simply voicing an "entitlement" attitude ("I exist therefore I have earned the right to a luxurious lifestyle just like my friend the hard working [enter profession here] does without putting in the same work."). What we are talking about, generally, is software, music and video which has cost the creators (sometimes) millions of dollars to create. Saying they shouldn't profit from their research, development and marketing goes against what America stands for... which is the right and ability to experience financial gain from original thinking.
For those demanding free software, I see very, very, very few items created around here with The Gimp 2 or other open source software which is INTENDED to free. There are free, legal alternatives out there, use them or pay a LICENSING (not ownership) fee so we can be sure those industry leading software suites continue to release new versions with new functionality.
Bichur
Reply #69 Thursday, June 30, 2005 2:48 PM
Basically there are 2 reasons to tell people to shut up on forum:
1) you're tired of listening to them because you think they're wrong
2) you're tired of listening to them because you're wrong and can't handle the truth
Reply #69 Thursday, June 30, 2005 2:48 PM
| You can say Im on my own personal soap box whatever. Id disagree because Im not telling other people that they are just wrong.....im just telling them to shut up. |
Basically there are 2 reasons to tell people to shut up on forum:
1) you're tired of listening to them because you think they're wrong
2) you're tired of listening to them because you're wrong and can't handle the truth
maxholder
Reply #70 Thursday, June 30, 2005 3:34 PM
or perhaps one can over estimate the importance of the need (for some of us) to adorn one's computer in the first place particularly when it means tolerating a virtual space which has increasingly become more and more commodified. somehow however i doubt that there will come a time when the "'freely accessible' is no longer such". afterall was it not a drive to create and a desire to share those creations the basis upon which the skinning community was founded in the first place.
Reply #70 Thursday, June 30, 2005 3:34 PM
| Frankly....once the 'freely accessible' is no longer such, well...tough titties for those left staring at an unadorned computer screen. |
or perhaps one can over estimate the importance of the need (for some of us) to adorn one's computer in the first place particularly when it means tolerating a virtual space which has increasingly become more and more commodified. somehow however i doubt that there will come a time when the "'freely accessible' is no longer such". afterall was it not a drive to create and a desire to share those creations the basis upon which the skinning community was founded in the first place.
maxholder
Reply #71 Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:18 PM
why yes. my point exactly apocalypse67. people's opinions cannot simply be categorized into either those who 'make a living out of their work' and 'ones that just wants to freely take other people's work' perhaps context is important afterall.
perhaps also the issue of copyright is not simply one that can be so easily defined in black & white terms of ownership & theft.
Reply #71 Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:18 PM
| Not really. The reason why you and all other users can download these skins for free is because I (as all other authors)CHOOSE to share our work for free, it's a lot different than if I create a skin for the purpose of selling it and have someone take it and distribute it for free. |
why yes. my point exactly apocalypse67. people's opinions cannot simply be categorized into either those who 'make a living out of their work' and 'ones that just wants to freely take other people's work' perhaps context is important afterall.
perhaps also the issue of copyright is not simply one that can be so easily defined in black & white terms of ownership & theft.
Ka806
Reply #72 Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:30 PM
Reply #72 Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:30 PM
Lot to respond to so lets do it at once =P
That was a bad analogy at best. Comparing what one country practices with what a country imposes as law is not right. No its not that countries practice the rejection of intellectual property, they flat out deny its exsistence. Im Haitian and know full well of countries that perform genecide, I know its because of economical, social, and political disputes......not because its the law. Dont say such things cause that does make me angry.
Intellectual Property was simply the implementation of copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets to many of the things that are either
-duplicated without loss to the owner
-not actually tangible and exsisting to people.
Using all of these in conjunction adds up to what Intellectual Property is. Of course it sounds great and all but all these products need are copyrights, tademarks, and trade secrets. The concept behind Intellectual Property was to put artistic and other products in with the same league as some of the tangible items which exsist today. However Intellectual Property is NOT the same as regular property. Because of their artistic (and in software code 'mathematical') nature. We shouldnt be allowed to put patents on such things. Copyrights is enough to protect the name, trademarks is enough to protect the logo, and trade secrets is enough to protect the software.
What if apple sued stardock for those apple tags? They can just flaunt their little IP tag cause they are using an artistic style based of the macos website and tab style. How about they sue all of the people who make skins and themes that make windows look like osx. How about they sue stardock for their osx bars? Yes it can happen with IP. How about reverse engineering code. If IP was there for the days binary was around, we couldnt attempt to replicate it. It would be illegal.
. It promotes monopolies just flat out. Look now microsoft can create a new API, make it standard with their large market share. Then everyone will HAVE to use it since noone is allowed to reverse engineer it 
The concept to IP is real, its not something you can understand in your own way.
I never said that. I said the law can deem anything you create as property or not. The government can do whatever you want to what ever you create. Look at price ceilings. The government can even disallow you from entering a market. Look at utilities.
I never said they make you give anything for free (if i said that i mustve mistyped). Im saying they can label it as what they want when they want. You could sell it at a price whenever you want..........but it might still be legal to download.
It seems that people arguing for intellectual property know very little about it, or like monopolies. I mean you can run to open source software like the gimp when you need to sleep at night thinking IP is the way to Be. But you are setting yourself up to just fail. Look at linux in itself. Look at the kde and gnome desktops the reiserfs and ext filesystems, the epiphany and firefox web browsers, the xine and mplayer media players, X windows system, I could go on for days. They are very much free, you are part of the community, and the community owns the code. You can modify it anyway you want. And the things you can do with linux compare with and exceed windows (Now granted I want to stay on the topic of music file sharing etc.) but the GNU and heck even the BSD lisence prove, that at least in the software world, using IP is nothing along the lines of helpful to the community. All it does is allow the company with the most market share to create a new interface layer, make it standard. And allow competitors to do nothing about it, for as long as that company exsist.Under the gnu license. Its never about ownership, cause you cant own code (thats their philosophy)
Did I buy a microsoft os because they were the first and only guys to make an operating systems. Nope. I buy it because of the name microsoft, and I can I know that everyone kisses their ass and makes everybit of software compatible with it. With IP all we are sure that we are doing is allowing leading software suites to keep their monopoly and stifle innovation. With software code and a monopoly, you dont have to do something new, you just have to do something different with the code to break down compatibility with competitors.
And now they get the "entitlement" attitude label. Hah. Its something that you just have to except. People dont believe that software, music, and movies, are property, and they dont believe they have to pay for it. And they provide valid reasons for their beliefs.
3) Im tired of listening to them say the same thing when I disagree with them. I dont sit there and say such and such person is immoral or evil. I just plain disagree with them that Intellectual Property is an absolute. OMG shall I be sent to depths of hell where I shall burn for all eternity in hot pools of lava. But first I have to be arrested and spend years in prison or pay large amount of fines.
| So, by your logic, because some countries practice genocide, then that makes it okay, as long as you don't believe it's wrong? And the term Intellectual Property (as I understand it) just means "I created it, but it's not something you can hold in your hand, but something you can hold in your mind." So, what is the difference between that and copyright, which says about the same thing, and speaks to the rights pursuant to that claim. It seems to me that the concept of Intellectual Property is the foundation for Copyright. I guess I really don't understand your perspective. (Do you?) |
That was a bad analogy at best. Comparing what one country practices with what a country imposes as law is not right. No its not that countries practice the rejection of intellectual property, they flat out deny its exsistence. Im Haitian and know full well of countries that perform genecide, I know its because of economical, social, and political disputes......not because its the law. Dont say such things cause that does make me angry.
Intellectual Property was simply the implementation of copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets to many of the things that are either
-duplicated without loss to the owner
-not actually tangible and exsisting to people.
Using all of these in conjunction adds up to what Intellectual Property is. Of course it sounds great and all but all these products need are copyrights, tademarks, and trade secrets. The concept behind Intellectual Property was to put artistic and other products in with the same league as some of the tangible items which exsist today. However Intellectual Property is NOT the same as regular property. Because of their artistic (and in software code 'mathematical') nature. We shouldnt be allowed to put patents on such things. Copyrights is enough to protect the name, trademarks is enough to protect the logo, and trade secrets is enough to protect the software.
What if apple sued stardock for those apple tags? They can just flaunt their little IP tag cause they are using an artistic style based of the macos website and tab style. How about they sue all of the people who make skins and themes that make windows look like osx. How about they sue stardock for their osx bars? Yes it can happen with IP. How about reverse engineering code. If IP was there for the days binary was around, we couldnt attempt to replicate it. It would be illegal.
. It promotes monopolies just flat out. Look now microsoft can create a new API, make it standard with their large market share. Then everyone will HAVE to use it since noone is allowed to reverse engineer it 
The concept to IP is real, its not something you can understand in your own way.
| WRONG. The law cannot make me give anything I create for free. It is my sole descition to do so. |
I never said that. I said the law can deem anything you create as property or not. The government can do whatever you want to what ever you create. Look at price ceilings. The government can even disallow you from entering a market. Look at utilities.
I never said they make you give anything for free (if i said that i mustve mistyped). Im saying they can label it as what they want when they want. You could sell it at a price whenever you want..........but it might still be legal to download.
| Seems like the internet has made people even more entitlement minded. It also seems that the people who are arguing against "intellectual property" own very little of it. In order for the American society to work each individual must spend the majority of their day doing something to acquire money or goods (generally money which will later be exchanged for goods, in turn contributing to the cycle). If you take the money out of their daily equation they are forced to find something different to do which will provide the money or goods they need. If they do that, the original task will no longer be done (as in no software, music, whatever). You simply cannot hold the amount of money someone makes for a given service over their head as a "penalty" or justification for not paying for the service you are expected to pay for. After all, supply and demand dictates prices one may charge for services. When someone says "everyone should get everything, everything should be given to me because I can't/won't do what it takes to acquire it as intended" is simply voicing an "entitlement" attitude ("I exist therefore I have earned the right to a luxurious lifestyle just like my friend the hard working [enter profession here] does without putting in the same work."). What we are talking about, generally, is software, music and video which has cost the creators (sometimes) millions of dollars to create. Saying they shouldn't profit from their research, development and marketing goes against what America stands for... which is the right and ability to experience financial gain from original thinking. For those demanding free software, I see very, very, very few items created around here with The Gimp 2 or other open source software which is INTENDED to free. There are free, legal alternatives out there, use them or pay a LICENSING (not ownership) fee so we can be sure those industry leading software suites continue to release new versions with new functionality. |
It seems that people arguing for intellectual property know very little about it, or like monopolies. I mean you can run to open source software like the gimp when you need to sleep at night thinking IP is the way to Be. But you are setting yourself up to just fail. Look at linux in itself. Look at the kde and gnome desktops the reiserfs and ext filesystems, the epiphany and firefox web browsers, the xine and mplayer media players, X windows system, I could go on for days. They are very much free, you are part of the community, and the community owns the code. You can modify it anyway you want. And the things you can do with linux compare with and exceed windows (Now granted I want to stay on the topic of music file sharing etc.) but the GNU and heck even the BSD lisence prove, that at least in the software world, using IP is nothing along the lines of helpful to the community. All it does is allow the company with the most market share to create a new interface layer, make it standard. And allow competitors to do nothing about it, for as long as that company exsist.Under the gnu license. Its never about ownership, cause you cant own code (thats their philosophy)
Did I buy a microsoft os because they were the first and only guys to make an operating systems. Nope. I buy it because of the name microsoft, and I can I know that everyone kisses their ass and makes everybit of software compatible with it. With IP all we are sure that we are doing is allowing leading software suites to keep their monopoly and stifle innovation. With software code and a monopoly, you dont have to do something new, you just have to do something different with the code to break down compatibility with competitors.
And now they get the "entitlement" attitude label. Hah. Its something that you just have to except. People dont believe that software, music, and movies, are property, and they dont believe they have to pay for it. And they provide valid reasons for their beliefs.
| Basically there are 2 reasons to tell people to shut up on forum: 1) you're tired of listening to them because you think they're wrong 2) you're tired of listening to them because you're wrong and can't handle the truth |
3) Im tired of listening to them say the same thing when I disagree with them. I dont sit there and say such and such person is immoral or evil. I just plain disagree with them that Intellectual Property is an absolute. OMG shall I be sent to depths of hell where I shall burn for all eternity in hot pools of lava. But first I have to be arrested and spend years in prison or pay large amount of fines.
Apocalypse_67
Reply #73 Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:34 PM
Not exactly, and again this is the misconception part of it all. The developers that created these software that we like so much and that enables each person to 'decorate' their desktop as they wish, did so with the purpose that each individual would create their own themes and adorn their own desktop. They were not created to 'force' anyone to share their work. Each individual uploads his/her work willingly and by choice, and if they want to make a profit out of it, then that will also be their choice and everyone needs to respect that.
You don’t have to purchase anything if you don’t want to, but don’t say it's wrong to profit out of your own work and assume/expect to get things for free.
Reply #73 Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:34 PM
| afterall was it not a drive to create and a desire to share those creations the basis upon which the skinning community was founded in the first place. |
Not exactly, and again this is the misconception part of it all. The developers that created these software that we like so much and that enables each person to 'decorate' their desktop as they wish, did so with the purpose that each individual would create their own themes and adorn their own desktop. They were not created to 'force' anyone to share their work. Each individual uploads his/her work willingly and by choice, and if they want to make a profit out of it, then that will also be their choice and everyone needs to respect that.
You don’t have to purchase anything if you don’t want to, but don’t say it's wrong to profit out of your own work and assume/expect to get things for free.
Ka806
Reply #74 Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:42 PM
Nice quotes. That I can agree with to an extent. But it must be noted that going around and saying everything is property, is simply not the right way to go. I like what companies like red hat do. They charge for the services of their product, but the product stays free. All companies need to think of something better than IP and use copyrights, trade secrets, and trademarks with something better.
I mean some people will have to face facts. Object dock which is being sold by stardock is an immense violation of the intellectual property of Apple's OSX Bar. If that was patented I wouldnt have my object dock. That is just freaking nuts.
Reply #74 Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:42 PM
| why yes. my point exactly apocalypse67. people's opinions cannot simply be categorized into either those who 'make a living out of their work' and 'ones that just wants to freely take other people's work' perhaps context is important afterall. perhaps also the issue of copyright is not simply one that can be so easily defined in black & white terms of ownership & theft. |
| or perhaps one can over estimate the importance of the need (for some of us) to adorn one's computer in the first place particularly when it means tolerating a virtual space which has increasingly become more and more commodified. somehow however i doubt that there will come a time when the "'freely accessible' is no longer such". afterall was it not a drive to create and a desire to share those creations the basis upon which the skinning community was founded in the first place. |
Nice quotes. That I can agree with to an extent. But it must be noted that going around and saying everything is property, is simply not the right way to go. I like what companies like red hat do. They charge for the services of their product, but the product stays free. All companies need to think of something better than IP and use copyrights, trade secrets, and trademarks with something better.
I mean some people will have to face facts. Object dock which is being sold by stardock is an immense violation of the intellectual property of Apple's OSX Bar. If that was patented I wouldnt have my object dock. That is just freaking nuts.
maxholder
Reply #75 Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:53 PM
au contraire S3vyn i beg to differ. what 'we are talking about here' is control of information. who will control that information & how it will be controlled. 'what america' and western democracy stand for is the right to exploit a resource whether that emerges from original thinking or as a result of simple political expediency.
the moral issues revolving around copyright & ownership are more complex than you seem to suggest. Brazil at this time threatening to break patents on anti-aids drugs in order to maintain their health program being a case in point. capitalism cannot simply be framed in terms of benign meritocracy. it's very nature i would argue is inherently exploitative and one in which moderation is a contradiction in terms.
Reply #75 Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:53 PM
| What we are talking about, generally, is software, music and video which has cost the creators (sometimes) millions of dollars to create. Saying they shouldn't profit from their research, development and marketing goes against what America stands for... which is the right and ability to experience financial gain from original thinking. |
au contraire S3vyn i beg to differ. what 'we are talking about here' is control of information. who will control that information & how it will be controlled. 'what america' and western democracy stand for is the right to exploit a resource whether that emerges from original thinking or as a result of simple political expediency.
the moral issues revolving around copyright & ownership are more complex than you seem to suggest. Brazil at this time threatening to break patents on anti-aids drugs in order to maintain their health program being a case in point. capitalism cannot simply be framed in terms of benign meritocracy. it's very nature i would argue is inherently exploitative and one in which moderation is a contradiction in terms.
Ka806
Reply #76 Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:54 PM
Well many of these companies are assholes in my opinion. Kazaa for example is one of the worst companies out there. I like the part where they shut down kazaa lite because of IP problems. Lots of times companies rely on forcing people to share because they only get revenue from advertisements, and putting spyware on your computer. This law should probably focus more on people who make profit from file sharign, rather than those that promote it.
Reply #76 Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:54 PM
| Not exactly, and again this is the misconception part of it all. The developers that created these software that we like so much and that enables each person to 'decorate' their desktop as they wish, did so with the purpose that each individual would create their own themes and adorn their own desktop. They were not created to 'force' anyone to share their work. Each individual uploads his/her work willingly and by choice, and if they want to make a profit out of it, then that will also be their choice and everyone needs to respect that. You don’t have to purchase anything if you don’t want to, but don’t say it's wrong to profit out of your own work and assume/expect to get things for free. |
Well many of these companies are assholes in my opinion. Kazaa for example is one of the worst companies out there. I like the part where they shut down kazaa lite because of IP problems. Lots of times companies rely on forcing people to share because they only get revenue from advertisements, and putting spyware on your computer. This law should probably focus more on people who make profit from file sharign, rather than those that promote it.
Ka806
Reply #77 Thursday, June 30, 2005 5:06 PM
I Believe that is the biggest problem. People fail to accept that this is a complex moral issue (let a lone an ethical one) and label it wrong or right. Im not going to say that the concept of IP is wrong or right, Im saying that there is another side, and it is valid.
Reply #77 Thursday, June 30, 2005 5:06 PM
| au contraire S3vyn i beg to differ. what 'we are talking about here' is control of information. who will control that information & how it will be controlled. 'what america' and western democracy stand for is the right to exploit a resource whether that emerges from original thinking or as a result of simple political expediency. the moral issues revolving around copyright & ownership are more complex than you seem to suggest. Brazil at this time threatening to break patents on anti-aids drugs in order to maintain their health program being a case in point. capitalism cannot simply be framed in terms of benign meritocracy. it's very nature i would argue is inherently exploitative and one in which moderation is a contradiction in terms. |
I Believe that is the biggest problem. People fail to accept that this is a complex moral issue (let a lone an ethical one) and label it wrong or right. Im not going to say that the concept of IP is wrong or right, Im saying that there is another side, and it is valid.
maxholder
Reply #78 Thursday, June 30, 2005 5:16 PM
since you insist on quoting my discourse apocalypse67 i must assume you are referring to my argument(s) specifically. ofcourse you may simply be generalizing.
firstly, i have not mentioned anything about 'forcing anyone to share their work'. nor do i contest the right or say that it is wrong for an author to profit from their own work. indeed the wonderful thing about consumer society is we all have the freedom to choose afterall.
on a purely subjective note however i do feel that a large part of what goes into making a community in the first place can largely be attributed to a goodwill predicated upon a give and take that is not wholly underpinned by a commercial ethic. ofcourse i could be wrong.
Reply #78 Thursday, June 30, 2005 5:16 PM
| ...They were not created to 'force' anyone to share their work. Each individual uploads his/her work willingly and by choice, and if they want to make a profit out of it, then that will also be their choice and everyone needs to respect that. You don’t have to purchase anything if you don’t want to, but don’t say it's wrong to profit out of your own work and assume/expect to get things for free. |
since you insist on quoting my discourse apocalypse67 i must assume you are referring to my argument(s) specifically. ofcourse you may simply be generalizing.
firstly, i have not mentioned anything about 'forcing anyone to share their work'. nor do i contest the right or say that it is wrong for an author to profit from their own work. indeed the wonderful thing about consumer society is we all have the freedom to choose afterall.
on a purely subjective note however i do feel that a large part of what goes into making a community in the first place can largely be attributed to a goodwill predicated upon a give and take that is not wholly underpinned by a commercial ethic. ofcourse i could be wrong.
Ka806
Reply #79 Thursday, June 30, 2005 5:34 PM
Just watch out people dont compare you to al capone with such blasphemous words
I like it how people are evil these days because they dont think everything is based off money.
Reply #79 Thursday, June 30, 2005 5:34 PM
| since you insist on quoting my discourse apocalypse67 i must assume you are referring to my argument(s) specifically. ofcourse you may simply be generalizing. firstly, i have not mentioned anything about 'forcing anyone to share their work'. nor do i contest the right or say that it is wrong for an author to profit from their own work. indeed the wonderful thing about consumer society is we all have the freedom to choose afterall. on a purely subjective note however i do feel that a large part of what goes into making a community in the first place can largely be attributed to a goodwill predicated upon a give and take that is not wholly underpinned by a commercial ethic. ofcourse i could be wrong. |
Just watch out people dont compare you to al capone with such blasphemous words
I like it how people are evil these days because they dont think everything is based off money.
S3vyn
Reply #80 Thursday, June 30, 2005 5:39 PM
Reply #80 Thursday, June 30, 2005 5:39 PM
This discussion waxes pointless and I won't be returning. The Court made the right decision for all of those of us who have their names attached to a software patent and/or copyright. To expect the Supreme Court to cater to people who want something for nothing or who only speak in theories and vague antonyms is at best a ludicrous and futile excercise. I expect, as should you, that the Supreme Court will continue to rule in favor of those who work within the existing law structure as opposed to ruling in favor of those who would prefer to have something for nothing.
There are people and teams who distribute their work freely. There is an alternative to almost every industry leading software suite. Use those alternatives instead of the industry leader unless you are ready to pay the industry leader's license fees. Otherwise you're breaking a law that you know exists, this makes you a willing criminal.
There are people and teams who distribute their work freely. There is an alternative to almost every industry leading software suite. Use those alternatives instead of the industry leader unless you are ready to pay the industry leader's license fees. Otherwise you're breaking a law that you know exists, this makes you a willing criminal.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 4 of 11 | |
|
|---|
Reply #61 Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:56 AM
As for the soap boxes, it seems to me that you've been on yours quite a bit here.
I work as a software developer also and still hold that opinion. I dont see it as volunteer work. You seem to be taking out of context what im saying. This is on the concept of Intellectual Property. People and countries just dont believe in it. If people dont view it as property, then they have no reason to buy it. Of course where do the people make money? Thats in the copyrights. If the project that you are developing is solid and you put it behind a good name. Then yes, I do brand those that take it against that persons wishes as theivery. To give people the right to copy in what you make is perfectly fine to money makers is ok in my opinion. To say that you hold property on intellect?.....thats just ridiculous.
You can say Im on my own personal soap box whatever. Id disagree because Im not telling other people that they are just wrong.....im just telling them to shut up.
But whatever that was a little out of line of me and im sorry for that