Operating Systems > macOS

Apple's Boot Camp beta

<< < (9/11) > >>

H_TeXMeX_H:
Copyright is available for one reason, and one reason alone ... the provide profit to the one who copyrights whatever they may be copyrighting. If it's copyright no one else can copy it or sell it. It's an extremely greedy point of view that I fully disagree with.

If they still wanted to make a profit, but eliminate greedyness they should allow people to copy it, but not sell it. Like you can buy Adobe Photoshop, make copies and distribute to your friends for free ... if you charge them money though it would be illegal. Of course, this might also mean rather reduced profits for the company, but they make a shitload of money anyway, so it should be only a minor downturn ... and it promotes friendly behavior towards peers.

Aloone_Jonez:

--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I never said I wanted copyright abolished. Copying something should never mean breaking the law IMO.


Are they supposed to be incompatible?
--- End quote ---

Making it legal to copy everything will have exactly the same effect as abolishing copyright law.


--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Then point out the significant differences.
--- End quote ---

Music and films are art, software is technology.


--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---So you're keeping all the code you write to yourself just for fear that Linspire will make use of it? Jesus Fucking Christ.
--- End quote ---

Linspire was just an example, I might want to keep the code to stop someone from altering it or using it in a way I disagree with.

Copyright law was first introduced before computers even existed, it was origionally meant to stop people from copying books and selling them. Nowadays it's moved on a lot, it's meant to protect companies profits by stopping people from using their material without paying for it. You might argue that it makes no difference when people copy software/music/films becaue it costs nothing to do but it still hurts their profits and you talk about big companies, what about the smaller ones who struggle to survive?

I think copyright law used to be fair before all Microsoft's ELUA and DRM bullshit came into place. There needs to be a ballance, on one side people need to be granted fair use of software like the right to make a back up copy or to re-sell and hence transfer their rights to another part. Nowadays the ballance has swung too far in the direction of protecting against piracy at the expense of the consumer.

Copyright law part of a lager grop of laws involving interlectual property - the idea that ideas themselves are worth money. Scrapping copyright law brings up many other questions:

How about patents?

I certainly woudn't like it if I'd invested 5 milliion in developing a product and then someone copying it and making an inferiour competing product for a cheaper price. Having said that I'd be fucked off if I'd released a program only to discover that MS had just patented one of the features so I have to pay the royalties.

What about trademarks?

I'd be pretty pissed off if I'd come up with a brand name and a competitor decided to make an inferiour product with the same name and my customers got confused so I went down as a result. However I'd have my surname was Mcdonald and I have a burger restaurant as a familly bussiness and McDonalds sued me even if the sighns and pakagaing looked completely different to the big multinational's. By the way this has actually happened, I don't know whether they finally succeded in suing though.

As with everying a ballence needs to be  struck and this isn't easy by any means.

piratePenguin:

--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Making it legal to copy everything will have exactly the same effect as abolishing copyright law.
--- End quote ---
Copyright can be used for more than straight-copy prevention. I can make sure any changes you make to code I write are also made available to the public through copyright ('copyleft').

--- Quote ---
Music and films are art, software is technology.
--- End quote ---
Ah, words.

Aloone_Jonez:
Yes words with totally different meanings, art is just creative, technology is functional it has a design process involving drawings or source code. You can't have closed source art but you can have technoloy whether it be software or computer hardware, but the former is harder to copy than the latter.

By the way (just for the record) RMS is a fucking moron and I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who think this so I wish people would stop sucking him off. As far as I'm concerned RMS stands for Root Mean Square which is far more useful than some tosser who's up their own arse.

By the way I've already raised the concept of increasing consumer rights over the use of software to ballancethe rights of the author but no one gave a fuck. I would also extend this to music and add clauses saying public performance should be exempt from royalties provinding it isn't for profit and I'd apply the same to films, that way you couldn't get sued for playing music at a house party.

piratePenguin:

--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---Yes words with totally different meanings, art is just creative, technology is functional it has a design process involving drawings or source code. You can't have closed source art but you can have technoloy whether it be software or computer hardware, but the former is harder to copy than the latter.
--- End quote ---
What if da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa in the GIMP, and printed it out? He'd have the source XCF file and noone else would. It's no good trying to modify the printed image (much harder to do it properly without the layers and stuff).

Wouldn't that be "closed source" art?

"closed source" happens far more often with computer programs because only computers need to understand them, not humans. There's no need for the developers to release the source code. If the program needed to be understood by e.g. a Python interpreter then it won't be binary, and could easilly be understood and modified by humans. A binary file is very hard to modify.

--- Quote ---
By the way (just for the record) RMS is a fucking moron and I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who think this so I wish people would stop sucking him off.
--- End quote ---
Why don't you tell us why you think he's a "fucking moron"?

--- Quote ---As far as I'm concerned RMS stands for Root Mean Square which is far more useful than some tosser who's up their own arse.
--- End quote ---
Oh great, you think root mean square is a fucking moron?

--- Quote ---
By the way I've already raised the concept of increasing consumer rights over the use of software to ballancethe rights of the author but no one gave a fuck. I would also extend this to music and add clauses saying public performance should be exempt from royalties provinding it isn't for profit and I'd apply the same to films, that way you couldn't get sued for playing music at a house party.
--- End quote ---
I'd add:

5. Copying and distributing the software/whatever.

Never gonna happen (on this blue, green and mostly brown planet), but meh.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page