All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Windows Geniune Pain in the Arse
worker201:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin on 9 June 2010, 00:36 ---Besides, I'm absolutely sure it says in the bible that copy protection is lame.
--- End quote ---
If that's true, then I love copy protection.
piratePenguin:
I didn't read your post entirely Kintaro, reason number 1 is that this isn't something I want to battle out over the internet, here no less, this is something I want to study and research more at some point in my life, and perhaps since I am not and never will be qualified in the fields of psychology, and other fields*, I may be interested in encouraging or supporting useful related studies (food for thought, and that is all this is: will ubuntu children be nicer than windows children? How does the subtly presented message of ubuntu (as an example) filter down to kids, who won't all be particularly interested in those ideals (and yet could take them on board wrt sharing). And then we can think about the real benefits of a free society, outside of the obvious (typically ill-informed) observations that you or I or anyone may have (and vested observations in the case of the real gold-diggers of the industries (who aren't artists)). For example I believe that you suggested that it will be impossible to make a living as an artist without copy-protection, which seems silly to me because artists existed before copy-protection. Of course you know this, and that artists exist today without copy protection (think bsd and additionally think fashion interestingly, it is legal to rip off a quality brands designs completely (just not TMs). Tomorrow I'll find a link to a talk very relevant to this discussion). Anyways my main point is that your post, my post is not useful, it is just what we feel.
Btw, my remark about the bible was a joke. Jesus advocated sharing (especially with piratepenguin, btw).
* Though I will be (notice: will be) quite informed in economics, and let me mention that the economical issues with this are more complex than you appear to understand, there is much information you should read from Lawrence Lessig as a simple example, but I think you already know about this. Surprising.
Kintaro:
I don't know what you are on about.
I wasn't talking about philosophy or economics. I wasn't really even talking about politics, I was talking about philosophy. Yet I think even that is far too vague. I am talking about a code which supports human existence. This necessitates certain freedoms and certain human rights and for these things to exist we require inalienable human rights. You talk vaguely about gold-digging titans of industry, but what is the source of all the wonders which make this debate possible? It is these "gold digging" individuals you talk about. They should be able to produce what they produce on their own terms. This is what freedom is all about.
All I was saying is that artists, developers, writers, and so on have the human right to produce their work in forms that require you purchase it. Rather than doing that at gunpoint through copyright law, it would be a great progression for human achievement to do this through the Trusted Platform Module or other similar things. I just want to ask you one question: do you advocate using the law and thus force and coercion to stop people doing this? Because it sounds that way, and at that point you stop being a simple pirate and become an armed bandit.
What your original post ignores is the supply side of the debate entirely. You talk about music and art as if you are the member of some strange cargo cult - and all that you know is that these things "come from your friends." No, they don't. They come from the human mind and for the human mind to be capable of anything at all it requires a body which is free to act. When you seperate property rights from human rights you seperate a mans limbs from his own survival. Without the right to use his own arms, Calum wouldn't be able to impress us with nifty guitar riffs. It is sometimes a shame, because Calum uses that freedom to do questionable things with his mouth - but we have no right to stop that. My freedom allows me to do what I want: live off the stock market (really, ask me about that some time and we'll see who knows anything useful about economics, masturbate, smoke pot, and write poems about little girls. Worker201 uses his freedom to work at a green grocer and despite me looking like the fat cat, he probably has the more stable income and yet still pays less taxes.
My point is this, in the future I hope things like TPM can solve these problems. I won't run Windows Server on my network at all because in the time it takes for me to make the money to buy it - I could have just done everything on FreeBSD. Thus, suddenly Windows Server 2008 loses all its value in being quick and easy to set up. If that is how Microsoft want it to be, that is quite fine with me. At the same time, I think the guys at FreeBSD should be free write code under their own licence and have it enforced through the civil court.
When I see a GPL violation go unenforced I feel the same disgust as I do when I see The Australian Constitution (a social contract) violated beyond all comprehension. The sanctity of contract is very important, and so is the rights of producers to ship TPM in computers and for producers like Calum or Me to release our work on the Internet for free or on the Internet for profit.
* Lessig is really on the surface of economics, and his work is alright but as far as understanding economic behavior goes he is like Python, and what you really want to learn about probably won't be covered fully in your education. You will either learn a Chicagoian or Keynsian agenda depending on the whims of your faculty. Read Milton Freidman, read Maynard Kenyes, and read Frederich von Hayek and Rothbard and you will get the full spectrum. Nobody has a better theory of how small scale entities form the bigger picture than Friedman, nobody has a better theory of how to destroy freedom faster than Keynes, nobody has a better theory of how to end civilization than Rothbard's anarchism, and nobody has a better concept of sound and honest money than Hayek.
piratePenguin:
Well I didn't read your first post so I don't know what you think you're at right there.
The way I see it, a musician could easily release his songs under a free license and make money off of playing gigs, if he is good enough, and if that's what he wants. For one a million more people will get to enjoy his work (is that not important to an artist? I think you're being very one-dimensional), the more people that do will not only go to his gigs, but will probably offer donations e.g. he could raise around the time of new releases. Besides, everybody's stealing music already and the artists are getting no money from their customers!!111 (did I make my sarcasm clear enough?)
Again, some of my friends would have about zero interest in music, nevermind in paying for it, if I couldn't have given them stuff from my collection 7 or 8 years ago.
edit: Oh, you said that the freedom to distribute work with restrictions on people is the important freedom. Well I obviously don't agree, and I'm not the only one.
here's that video i referred to earlier. How do you explain this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
piratePenguin:
One last thing: I noticed you put forward some sharp criticisms of some economists: but are you really any smarter than they are?
Also I surely know that my education should extend well beyond what I will learn in my degree wrt economics, history. What I'm particularly interesting in wrt history (off-topic) is why the Irish free state didn't turn out to be a socialist one: was it foreign pressure? Or the partition of Ireland, or why did people in this country change their minds about this. I know history students who want to be professors so I should just ask them.
Perhaps you should start a thread where you can tell us all about your stock market endeavors, I'd like to hear.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version