Jail for downloading illegal MP3s
Steve
> In article <3D5979B7...@nospam.org.nz>, st...@nospam.org.nz
> says...
>
>
>
>>Anyone see that as a disproportionate penalty? How many years in jail
>>will the people who blew up the 50-odd victims at the Afghan wedding get?
>>
>>Hmm...........
>
> You pathetic Marxist propaganda agents never miss a trick do you..
>
> Connecting the downloading of MP3s to the Afghan war..
>
> How pitiful..
>
> Demonstrating clearly and unequivocally one thing only, and that is
> what a rabid and irrational supporter and propagater of anti American
> hate speech Steve Withers really is.
The only person posting hate speech around here is you,Red.....
Your posts are the epitome of the "love is hate', 'slavery is freedom'
non-think that Orwell wrote about in "1984".
Baboon
>> Anyone see that as a disproportionate penalty? How many years in jail
>> will the people who blew up the 50-odd victims at the Afghan wedding
>> get?
>>
>> Hmm...........
>>
>>
>
> You pathetic Marxist propaganda agents never miss a trick do you..
>
> Connecting the downloading of MP3s to the Afghan war..
>
> How pitiful..
>
> Demonstrating clearly and unequivocally one thing only, and that is
> what a rabid and irrational supporter and propagater of anti American
> hate speech Steve Withers really is.
AND WHAT A TOADY YOU ARE.
Baboon
--
climb...@hotmail.com
Peter
wrote:
I have come in a bit late here.
Years ago, a guy in Italy was sent to prison for not paying debts.
The creditor got the bill for keeping him in prison.
If a MP3 pirate ever goes to prison, the entertainment industry should
heet the cost of keeping the pirate there.
Chrissy
> The only person posting hate speech around here is you,Red.....
That is not the impression I am getting from some posters - Red
is not the only one.
Chrissy.
plebian
"Peter" <peterwn...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3d59c5e4...@news.paradise.net.nz...
Sending a regular MP3 downloader to klink would be like sending someone to
jail for listening to the radio.
p
>
Graeme Butler
Perhaps they could simply take him into a back ally and heet him up.
>
Bobs
Redbaiter wrote:
> In article <3D5979B7...@nospam.org.nz>, st...@nospam.org.nz
> says...
>
> > Anyone see that as a disproportionate penalty? How many years in jail
> > will the people who blew up the 50-odd victims at the Afghan wedding get?
> >
> > Hmm...........
> >
> >
>
> You pathetic Marxist propaganda agents never miss a trick do you..
What do you expect? These cretins seem to think it's their divine right to have
free access to any song they want, without paying for it.
Their entire argument is that "Oh, Mp3.com is a place for amateur artists to
upload their songs", never realizing half the songs on it are still illegal
since they use lyrics and chords ripped straight from commercial bands.
So instead of blaming mp3.com for allowing this, they blame the RIAA for
protecting the intellectual property of their clients.
What a sick joke, and a sad reflection of western society.
>
>
> Connecting the downloading of MP3s to the Afghan war..
>
> How pitiful..
>
> Demonstrating clearly and unequivocally one thing only, and that is
> what a rabid and irrational supporter and propagater of anti American
> hate speech Steve Withers really is.
>
> --
> Redbaiter
> In the leftist lexicon, the lowest of the low
--
The last time I was inside a woman was when I went to the Statue of Liberty.
Matthew Poole
>
>
>Redbaiter wrote:
*SNIP*
>Their entire argument is that "Oh, Mp3.com is a place for amateur artists to
>upload their songs", never realizing half the songs on it are still illegal
>since they use lyrics and chords ripped straight from commercial bands.
>
And said commercial bands frequently ripped those lyrics and chords from
some other commercial band. Face it, Bobs, there's fuck-all original
music out there these days, and a lot of it is coming from artists who
are singing the "Fuck RIAA" tune.
Oh, and since when is it possible to copyright a chord? There would be
no music left to write, since there's only a limited number of chords.
As for the lyrics, well, my understanding of the situation was that you
can't actually copyright a song anyway. How else do covers bands avoid
being sued?
--
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"
My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
Steve
>
> Redbaiter wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3D5979B7...@nospam.org.nz>, st...@nospam.org.nz
>>says...
>>
>>
>>>Anyone see that as a disproportionate penalty? How many years in jail
>>>will the people who blew up the 50-odd victims at the Afghan wedding get?
>>>
>>>Hmm...........
>>
>>You pathetic Marxist propaganda agents never miss a trick do you..
>
> What do you expect? These cretins seem to think it's their divine right to have
> free access to any song they want, without paying for it.
>
> Their entire argument is that "Oh, Mp3.com is a place for amateur artists to
> upload their songs", never realizing half the songs on it are still illegal
> since they use lyrics and chords ripped straight from commercial bands.
You can't copyright a chord....
d'oh
Bobs
Steve wrote:
Irrelevant. My point still stands. Mp3.com is a haven for illegal music.
>
>
> d'oh
Steve
What we don't know is how many of them are Red.
Chrissy
> Chrissy wrote:
> > Steve wrote
> >
> >>The only person posting hate speech around here is you,Red.....
> >
> >
> > That is not the impression I am getting from some posters - Red
> > is not the only one.
>
Is paulsy Red?
Chrissy
Steve
Or talking to a friend.
I can go to a friend's house and listen to CDs. Why can't my friend
share them with me over the Net? It is the social equivalent.....video
conference....and play music.Just like we wuz sitting right there in the
same room.
The laws here are anti-social....which is why they get ignored so easily
and so naturally.
People are translating their relationships and interactions into a Net
context and won't be told how to conduct them....thanks very much.
Chrissy
> I can go to a friend's house and listen to CDs. Why can't my friend
> share them with me over the Net? It is the social equivalent.....video
> conference....and play music.Just like we wuz sitting right there in the
> same room.
Are you trying to say that most MP3 downloads are done so two people
can listen to music together even though they are at geographically separate
locations? I think most would be so people can listen to a song and not
have to pay for the CD.
I have downloaded MP3s. The only ones I have downloaded are ones
I want to listen to a lot and I have damaged my CD of that song and three
that I wanted to get someone else to listen to. One I do not have on CD
but the other two I do. I do not think that what I have done is illegal and
I know I will not get thrown in jail for it. I have 6GBytes of recorded music
and none is from songs that are not on CDs or records I own.
> The laws here are anti-social....which is why they get ignored so easily
> and so naturally.
Bullshit. They are ignored because people can get away with it and they
want to same themselves money.
> People are translating their relationships and interactions into a Net
> context and won't be told how to conduct them....thanks very much.
What is wrong with people wanting to protect IP? The fact that the
artists have signed contracts that may give that IP to someone is not
an excuse for someone else to steal it. Someone owns the IP and
has a right to proceeds from it.
Chrissy.
person x
> In article <3D5A12A2...@extra.co.nz>, Bobs <bo...@extra.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Redbaiter wrote:
> *SNIP*
>> Their entire argument is that "Oh, Mp3.com is a place for amateur
>> artists to upload their songs", never realizing half the songs on it
>> are still illegal since they use lyrics and chords ripped straight
>> from commercial bands.
>>
> *SNIP*
> And said commercial bands frequently ripped those lyrics and chords
> from some other commercial band. Face it, Bobs, there's fuck-all
> original music out there these days, and a lot of it is coming from
> artists who are singing the "Fuck RIAA" tune.
There's plenty of good original music out there. The irony is that virtually the
only way to find it is to go hunting for mp3s. What sort of music do you listen
to?
> Oh, and since when is it possible to copyright a chord?
I think some progressions or arrangements can be copyrighted. I have some half
recollection of the Verve being sued for not paying royalties to someone for
using some copyrighted music as part of 'Bittersweet Symphony'.
> There would
> be no music left to write, since there's only a limited number of
> chords.
That's absolute crap, IMO it's just an excuse not to be innovative. For all
intents and purposes there's an unlimited number of sounds to draw on given all
the different possible combinations of instruments, notes, chords etc. There
will always be someone making a totally original sound.
> As for the lyrics, well, my understanding of the situation
> was that you can't actually copyright a song anyway.
You can copyright lyrics.
> How else do
> covers bands avoid being sued?
IIRC covers band can play anything live, but if a cover is released on an album
royalties are payed to the relevant source.
mr-p
>
>
> Irrelevant. My point still stands. Mp3.com is a haven for illegal music.
Prove it
Robin
person x wrote:
>
> Matthew Poole wrote:
> > In article <3D5A12A2...@extra.co.nz>, Bobs <bo...@extra.co.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Redbaiter wrote:
> > *SNIP*
> >> Their entire argument is that "Oh, Mp3.com is a place for amateur
> >> artists to upload their songs", never realizing half the songs on it
> >> are still illegal since they use lyrics and chords ripped straight
> >> from commercial bands.
> >>
> > *SNIP*
> > And said commercial bands frequently ripped those lyrics and chords
> > from some other commercial band. Face it, Bobs, there's fuck-all
> > original music out there these days, and a lot of it is coming from
> > artists who are singing the "Fuck RIAA" tune.
>
> There's plenty of good original music out there. The irony is that virtually the
> only way to find it is to go hunting for mp3s. What sort of music do you listen
> to?
>
> > Oh, and since when is it possible to copyright a chord?
>
> I think some progressions or arrangements can be copyrighted. I have some half
> recollection of the Verve being sued for not paying royalties to someone for
> using some copyrighted music as part of 'Bittersweet Symphony'.
To Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Thats why it was good.
Andrew Bryson
news:3D5A4D8B...@actrix.co.nz...
> > IIRC covers band can play anything live, but if a cover is released on
an album
> > royalties are payed to the relevant source.
Actually the places where they perform have to pay a fee to the appropriate
body together with a song list. The appropriate composers are then paid. In
NZ the appropriate body is APRA...
--
Andrew Bryson
Bryson Technologies Ltd, Christchurch New Zealand
http://www.bryson.co.nz
Steve
If you can't copyright it,it ain't illegal.
Steve
He can't. MP3.com cleaned up their act 2 years ago.
plebian
> >
<edit>
> > Oh, and since when is it possible to copyright a chord?
> >
> > I think some progressions or arrangements can be copyrighted. I have
some half
> > recollection of the Verve being sued for not paying royalties to someone
for
> > using some copyrighted music as part of 'Bittersweet Symphony'.
> To Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Thats why it was good.
Unfortunately not to Mick and Keith, but to one of their former managers who
had copyright over some Muzak versions of their shit. The sad thing is that
the verve used it as a hook in a way that neither the Stones nor the manager
would have thought of. Although the technique itself was originated by hip
hoppers, the Verve used it in a fairly new context - it was their one great
moment and they deserved credit for it.
p
<john cage remix>
plebian
"Steve" <st...@nospam.org.nz> wrote in message
news:3D5A5...@nospam.org.nz...
The legal status of downloading is still not settled. In the Napster case,
the judge asked RIAA to prove they actually held copyright over the songs
they were claiming. I believe they have been backing away slowly, smiling,
since then over that issue. Fact is big music's pinched so much property
from composers over the years by way of illegal contracting and scams that
they're not sure what would hold up in court and what wouldn't.
p
>
>
Chrissy
> Redbaiter wrote:
> > st...@nospam.org.nz says...
> >
> > > Anyone see that as a disproportionate penalty? How many years in jail
> > > will the people who blew up the 50-odd victims at the Afghan wedding get?
> > >
> > > Hmm...........
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You pathetic Marxist propaganda agents never miss a trick do you..
>
> What do you expect? These cretins seem to think it's their divine right to have
> free access to any song they want, without paying for it.
>
> Their entire argument is that "Oh, Mp3.com is a place for amateur artists to
> upload their songs", never realizing half the songs on it are still illegal
> since they use lyrics and chords ripped straight from commercial bands.
>
> So instead of blaming mp3.com for allowing this, they blame the RIAA for
> protecting the intellectual property of their clients.
>
> What a sick joke, and a sad reflection of western society.
It is not a reflection on western society - it is the essence of western society.
Chrissy.
Steve
Wouldn't think so.....Red is homophobic.
Kim Shepherd
I'm not really sure what I think of all this so far, but assuming that
intellectual property like ideas, music, art, information, etc.. is still
considered legal property, then taking your argument to its logical
conclusion would mean all victims of theft should pay for the cost of
punishing the thief.
Doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
-k.
Peter B.
obviously wrote the words:
>And said commercial bands frequently ripped those lyrics and chords from
>some other commercial band.
Most commercial bands are actually charged for using others' music and
lyrics. That's built into their contracts. The rate paid is small, but
it goes directly to the authors.
Radio stations also have to pay royalties, which again are extremely
low.
Technically, everyone who performs a piece of music is supposed to pay
for the use, but the reality is that most people are doing it for
non-commercial purposes, or where the return is so low that it is not
worth chasing them up.
>Face it, Bobs, there's fuck-all original
>music out there these days, and a lot of it is coming from artists who
>are singing the "Fuck RIAA" tune.
>Oh, and since when is it possible to copyright a chord? There would be
>no music left to write, since there's only a limited number of chords.
>As for the lyrics, well, my understanding of the situation was that you
>can't actually copyright a song anyway. How else do covers bands avoid
>being sued?
Yes, you CAN copyright a song, just like any other piece of writing.
Similarly with Music and its symbols.
As for chords, they are in the public domain, just as most words are
and ideas are. But they don't make a song or lyrics or a book until
they are put into combinations.
Otherwise, you could be sued for posting to a newsgroup for breach of
copyright. :-)
Steve
> Steve wrote
>
>>I can go to a friend's house and listen to CDs. Why can't my friend
>>share them with me over the Net? It is the social equivalent.....video
>>conference....and play music.Just like we wuz sitting right there in the
>>same room.
>
> Are you trying to say that most MP3 downloads are done so two people
> can listen to music together even though they are at geographically separate
> locations? I think most would be so people can listen to a song and not
> have to pay for the CD.
True.....but the situation I describe is also illegal....
> ..........I do not think that what I have done is illegal and
> I know I will not get thrown in jail for it. I have 6GBytes of recorded music
> and none is from songs that are not on CDs or records I own.
Fair enough.
>>The laws here are anti-social....which is why they get ignored so easily
>>and so naturally.
>
> Bullshit. They are ignored because people can get away with it and they
> want to same themselves money.
It's not BS.People share. They always have.Sharing is the lingua franca
of friendship and used to be essential for group survivial.
Laws that ban sharing are ignored. I have my neighbour in mind here. She
copies music and software CDs like there's no tomorrow. They are used in
her social interactions the way cigarettes used to be used....until most
people stopped smoking.
She refuses to accept it's illegal."I bought this CD and I'll do what I
want with it and they can get knotted"....etc...
There are a lot of poeple like that. Open Source is ideal for them as
software as it allows them to engage in such normal human behaviours
without fear of breaking any law designed to outlaw sharing.
>>People are translating their relationships and interactions into a Net
>>context and won't be told how to conduct them....thanks very much.
............
> What is wrong with people wanting to protect IP? The fact that the
> artists have signed contracts that may give that IP to someone is not
> an excuse for someone else to steal it. Someone owns the IP and
> has a right to proceeds from it.
The evidence says that you can't protect IP when access is universal.
THe law looks more and more like King Canute ignoring the tide of
humanity doing what they have always done - share.
All you can do sequester your IP and limit access. In which case you
risk being ignored as people will then continue to access what they can
access - and share it - and ignore what they can't access...provided
what is available is adequate for their purposes.
I use Linux so that my sharing is legal. I won't be told that doing what
comes naturally is illegal. I'll boycott a product that tries to enforce
that on me.
I don't download MP3s. I tend to buy compilations and then extract the
tracks I want.....though I do buy the occasional good album like
"Stellar" and the Feeler's first album.
Bruce Simpson
Hey -- P2P networks and many other repositories often cary music for
which the user has paid a legitimate fee to use.
It can be argued that those who download it are breaking the law.
But what about FM radio and the various music video programs on TV?
They're making copyrighted music available to anyone who wants to tune
in and listen to it -- or (gasp) even record it to tape, disk or PC.
Now we all know (thanks to the efforts of the local recording
industry) that *all* forms of copying are a breach of the copyright
act. Yes, even copying your favourite CD onto tape so you can listen
to it in the car -- or making a compilation tape/disk by putting all
your favourite legally obtained tracks onto a single tape/disk is
illegal.
However, the industry says it won't (yet) prosecute people for this
type of activity.
Taping your favourite music or video onto tape or a disk is also
illegal unless it's done solely for the purposes of "timeshifting."
That is to say -- the copyright owner would have to prove that you had
already listented to that track before they could bring prosecution.
If you'd recorded it but not yet listened then you could claim that
you were exempted by section 84 of the copyright act which says:
"The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast
or cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling the recording to
be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe
copyright"
So -- if you're ever accosted by the recording industry's goons who
find you in possession of a tape or CD containing material recorded
from the radio or TV then simply say "I've not yet listened to it" and
quote section 84 of the Act.
But back to my original point -- if the industry is prepared to allow
their valuable music to be freely broadcast over the ether by radio
and TV -- whereapon evil pirating individuals can capture it and
record it -- why are they worried about P2P networks that do exactly
the same thing??
They seem remarkably inconsistent in the application of their
standards don't they?
----
I can be contacted via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/
Chrissy
So there are at least two posting hate speech here?
Chrissy.
Chrissy
<<snipped>>
> I use Linux so that my sharing is legal. I won't be told that doing what
> comes naturally is illegal. I'll boycott a product that tries to enforce
> that on me.
>
> I don't download MP3s. I tend to buy compilations and then extract the
> tracks I want.....though I do buy the occasional good album like
> "Stellar" and the Feeler's first album.
All you are saying here is that this is not about MP3s or downloading.
It is about the law not keeping up with technology. That has always
been the case and probably always will be.
We need to address that issue. We need to have laws that are
relevant in today's context.
I read the crimes act a few years ago - why is not relevant - some
of what I learnt was. It is illegal to sell something to someone if that
believe it will be used for homosexual purposes. I cannot find the
exact wording now but I do remember thinking that you cannot
sell a house to a gay couple or a bed or a sofa or a ...... if they
could have sex on it. I think it even expended to condoms.
Our laws NEVER keep up with reality. The ones about music are
no exception.
Chrissy.
bt
>> So instead of blaming mp3.com for allowing this, they blame the RIAA for
>> protecting the intellectual property of their clients.
>>
>> What a sick joke, and a sad reflection of western society.
>
>It is not a reflection on western society - it is the essence of western society.
Western society was founded on principals now labelled Piracy and
copyright infringement.
Additionally, copyright is not forever. It lasts 20 years or so
(depending on jurisdiction).
Copyright and Patents are an abomination and I think they should be
scrapped entirely.
And finally, Bobs is a raving fucking idiot. This we hold to be self
evident.
Brendan (Avatar)
--
齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,�Join Electronic Frontiers New Zealand - ensure the future liberty of cyberspace in NZ. http://www.efnz.org.nz
..."I've missed your intelligent and well thought out posts" - Brett Roberts, OEM Manager, Microsoft NZ
Email: corum.usenet@myrealbox (dot com). No Timewasters. No UCE. My comments are IMHO, IIRC, FYI, and Copyright.
PAM.
>
> So there are at least two posting hate speech here?
>
> Chrissy.
Ouch!
PAM.
PAM.
>
> > Sending a regular MP3 downloader to klink would be like sending someone to
> > jail for listening to the radio.
> >
> > p
>
> Or talking to a friend.
>
OI! We'll have none of that. Sssssssh!
PAM.
Keith Whitehead
bt <b...@memelabs.com.invalid> wrote:
> Copyright and Patents are an abomination and I think they should be
> scrapped entirely.
The why would anyone invest in new technology , or in fact new anything ?
Would you prefer to be stuck with DOS on an old XT or the machine you
are using now. Patents are there to protect the costly investment
someone has made, it allows thm to have exclusive use of their
investment so they have a chance to recover those costs through sale.
the alternative is to simply invest zero, wait for someone else to do it
for you and simply steal their efforts.
This applies to all entertainment, technology, medicines etc...do you
really want a world where there is zero progress
Matthew Poole
>On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:28:57 GMT, sp...@stops.here (Matthew Poole)
>obviously wrote the words:
>As for chords, they are in the public domain, just as most words are
>and ideas are. But they don't make a song or lyrics or a book until
>they are put into combinations.
>
>Otherwise, you could be sued for posting to a newsgroup for breach of
>copyright. :-)
Don't give the bastards ideas :P
--
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"
My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
Peter B.
obviously wrote the words:
>Additionally, copyright is not forever. It lasts 20 years or so
>(depending on jurisdiction).
Under the Geneva convention which most countries use, music's has 50
years from date of publication.
"literature" has 50 years after the death of the author.
Patents are about 20 years.
>Copyright and Patents are an abomination and I think they should be
>scrapped entirely.
Depends on whether you are the one who owns the copyright or patent.
Until you have one, youo are entitled to your opinion.
>
Roger_Nickel
Section 43 of the Copyright Act seem to provide an escape hatch:-
"..43. Research or private study---
(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purposes of research or private study
does not infringe copyright in the work.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that fair
dealing with a published edition for the purposes of research or private
study does not infringe copyright in either the typographical arrangement
of the edition or any literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work or
part of a work in the edition.
(3) In determining, for the purposes of
subsection (1) of this section, whether copying, by means of a
reprographic process or by any other means, constitutes fair dealing for
the purposes of research or private study, a court shall have regard
to---
(a) The purpose of the copying; and
(b) The nature of the work copied; and
(c) Whether the work could have been obtained within a reasonable time
at an ordinary commercial price; and
(d) The effect of the copying on the potential market for, or value
of, the work; and
(e) Where part of a work is copied, the amount and substantiality of
the part copied taken in relation to the whole work.
(4)
Nothing in this section authorises the making of more than one
copy of the same work, or the same part of a work, on any one occasion.
Cf. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s. 29 (1), (2) (U.K.);
Copyright Act 1968, s. 40 (1), (2) (Aust.); 1962, No. 33, ss. 19
(1), (5), 20 (1)..."
We will have to wait for a test case.
bt
<k.j.wh...@massey.ac.nz> wrote:
>In article <d21mlugmdilnmpnvo...@4ax.com>,
> bt <b...@memelabs.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> Copyright and Patents are an abomination and I think they should be
>> scrapped entirely.
>
>The why would anyone invest in new technology , or in fact new anything ?
People would invest even MORE in new technology, as this would be the
ONLY way of maintaining a competitive edge. Hoarding of patents and
levying of licenses would cease to be the driving force.
Additionally, freed from the self-destructive straight jacket of IP
law, poor and rich nations alike would benefit to the individual
health of each citizen; medical costs would plummet.
High technology would accelerate in leaps and bounds because
restrictive and anti-competitive licenses would be impossible - one
company could no longer hold an entire industry to ransom because it
held a key patent.
The massive expense and beurocracy involved with enforcing this silly
idea would be dismissed.
The cost of software and literature would fall, as reproduction and
distribution costs would be eliminated.
Products would succeed on their merits - quality, value and
applicability.
Development costs would plummet as unique and elegant solutions could
be pllied without regard to paying some outrageous or burdensome
license.
Research would accelerate 100 fold as 'reinventing the wheel' would
become un-necessary to get around patents.
>Would you prefer to be stuck with DOS on an old XT or the machine you
>are using now.
The argument that we could not have the current state of the art
without Patents is spurious and without historical backing.
• People invent and create for pleasure or saving of labour. This has
been the course of human technology for all but the last 300 years.
The key developments in human development were not as a result of
patents or copyright, and did not take advantage of them.
• History demonstrates that the primary force behind human development
and technology has been the free exchange of information; much of our
Western society got it's start from pirated knowledge or knowledge
freely given.
• If Science operated the restrictive nonsense that passes for IP law,
science would NOT progress and we would all still live in caves. This
demonstrates clearly the fundemental flaw in the entire IP ideology -
and ideology that benefits the few at the massive expense of the many.
• Knowledge is perhaps the only infinite resource we have. It can be
replicated at negliable cost infinitly, and applied to indefinite
numbers of situations rendering many novel solutions to real problems;
it also builds upon itself in a way impossible in physics. It's value
is impossible to gauge - but ONLY when freely applied and shared - if
that is retarded, the value of it quickly drops to zero. It is
dismaying that with the ONE infinite resource the universe has granted
us, that we stupidly, obscenely so, IMPOSE an artificial scarcity upon
it!
>Patents are there to protect the costly investment someone has made,
A someone that did NOT discover his discovering in solation from all
that mankind has discovered before hand.
Does he pay royalties to the inventor of the Wheel ? Does he pay a
license to use speech ? Does he Pay a fee for reading and math ? For
the road he travelled to get the parts for his invention ?
No and a hundred times NO.
HE has benefitted from millions of nameless ancestors; HE could simply
be said to be paying his dues to them - to all mankind. He is not an
alien contracted in to help us, who owes our race nothing. He is the
direct product of the efforts of genertations.
If he see's so far, it is ONLY because he stands on the shoulders of
giants.
Your someone can earn his living by PRODUCING, manufactoring products
based on his discovery JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES. He will then be
in competition with other people. If he makes a better implementation
of his discovery, people will surely notice and the market will reward
him (is that not the Right Wing ideology ?).
Not every inventor is a good businessman; and very few businessmen are
good inventors. They need each other. A prolific inventor will be
highly sought after and well paid. Without having to be granted a
monopoly by patent.
>it allows thm to have exclusive use of their
>investment so they have a chance to recover those costs through sale.
They could recover costs through production in competition with other
commercial efforts in the same area, and reduce costs by using the
research of others. This mutualism is self-rewarding: the more
everyone contributes, the more costs is spread and reduced and the
more prolific you can be. Additionally, one aspect of this will be
better tools FOR the research and development, again accelerating and
aplifying your own efforts.
Simular to the fashion in which the GPL works; infact, you could say I
wish to GPL the entire body of knowledge the human race possesses.
>the alternative is to simply invest zero, wait for someone else to do it
>for you and simply steal their efforts.
It is not 'theft' - no one is deprived of the item; it is not in short
supply - it can be infinitly reproduced for little cost.
And in return, they benefit from the efforts of others, also for free.
>This applies to all entertainment, technology, medicines etc...do you
>really want a world where there is zero progress
"zero progress" is the conclusion of a weak mind.
The Open Source movement is a direct counter example.
Brendan (Avatar)
--
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸
bt
wrote:
>Under the Geneva convention which most countries use, music's has 50
>years from date of publication.
Ahh.
>>Copyright and Patents are an abomination and I think they should be
>>scrapped entirely.
>Depends on whether you are the one who owns the copyright or patent.
Translation: if you are making a fortune out of it, you are not an
unbiased commentator.
>Until you have one, youo are entitled to your opinion.
I do infact own many copyrights.
And I am entitled to an opinion on it with or without them. And I do
not need the permission of anyone for that.
Keith Whitehead
bt <b...@memelabs.com.invalid> wrote:
> >The why would anyone invest in new technology , or in fact new anything ?
>
> People would invest even MORE in new technology, as this would be the
> ONLY way of maintaining a competitive edge. Hoarding of patents and
> levying of licenses would cease to be the driving force.
Bollocks, why invest hunderds of millions of dollars when the chances of
being able to repay that cost is slim.
>
> Additionally, freed from the self-destructive straight jacket of IP
> law, poor and rich nations alike would benefit to the individual
> health of each citizen; medical costs would plummet.
as would quality. Last I heard was that is cost more than 1 BILLION in
the development of each new drug to hit the shelves. Why invest that
money when you can wait, analyse someone elses efforts and simply copy
it for less than 1/1000th of the cost.
>
> High technology would accelerate in leaps and bounds because
> restrictive and anti-competitive licenses would be impossible - one
> company could no longer hold an entire industry to ransom because it
> held a key patent.
Instead, no one would invest. You make the presumption that every line
of investigation becomes a commercial success, that is not so, the need
the successes to pay for the failures.
>
> The massive expense and beurocracy involved with enforcing this silly
> idea would be dismissed.
Because there will be nothing to enforce, development will stop.
>
> The cost of software and literature would fall, as reproduction and
> distribution costs would be eliminated.
As would development stop.
>
> Products would succeed on their merits - quality, value and
> applicability.
and someone simply steals what you have done. Hey look at that...this
wally spent millions developing this software, I can copy the disk for
$1-50 and sell it for $3. No costs to me...glad that chump did all the
work and met all the expenses.
>
> Development costs would plummet as unique and elegant solutions could
> be pllied without regard to paying some outrageous or burdensome
> license.
Oh, and where are thee going to come from ? perhaps everyone will also
work for no pay.
>
> Research would accelerate 100 fold as 'reinventing the wheel' would
> become un-necessary to get around patents.
You still don't get it do you. Development costs millions to billions of
dollars...where does this money come from ? As for the not reinventing
the wheel, that is where so much development has come from.
>
> >Would you prefer to be stuck with DOS on an old XT or the machine you
> >are using now.
>
> The argument that we could not have the current state of the art
> without Patents is spurious and without historical backing.
It is self evident when you actually think the problem through
rationally. Actually though, history is full of examples of ideas being
stolen and the originators going broke.
>
> • People invent and create for pleasure or saving of labour. This has
> been the course of human technology for all but the last 300 years.
> The key developments in human development were not as a result of
> patents or copyright, and did not take advantage of them.
Such as ?
Well I guess there is fire, and there is the wheel.
>
> • History demonstrates that the primary force behind human development
> and technology has been the free exchange of information; much of our
> Western society got it's start from pirated knowledge or knowledge
> freely given.
Actually much of it has been through warfare. When though you look at
the development of technology in the last 50 years it has been at an
accelerating rate.
>
> • If Science operated the restrictive nonsense that passes for IP law,
> science would NOT progress and we would all still live in caves. This
> demonstrates clearly the fundemental flaw in the entire IP ideology -
> and ideology that benefits the few at the massive expense of the many.
untrue.
>
> • Knowledge is perhaps the only infinite resource we have. It can be
> replicated at negliable cost infinitly, and applied to indefinite
> numbers of situations rendering many novel solutions to real problems;
> it also builds upon itself in a way impossible in physics.
Thats funny, it is physics that have allowed for the current generation
of computers.
>It's value
> is impossible to gauge - but ONLY when freely applied and shared - if
> that is retarded, the value of it quickly drops to zero. It is
> dismaying that with the ONE infinite resource the universe has granted
> us, that we stupidly, obscenely so, IMPOSE an artificial scarcity upon
> it!
the alternative is for companies to go into areas where there is finite
resources, food, water, housing, clothing. Not only that the value of
knowledge also drops to zero and no one works for nothing.
>
> >Patents are there to protect the costly investment someone has made,
>
> A someone that did NOT discover his discovering in solation from all
> that mankind has discovered before hand.
That is the whole point, it is because they can patent ideas that it
makes worthwhile doing continued research, because you getting paid for
the work previously done it gives the resources to move forward.
>
> Does he pay royalties to the inventor of the Wheel ? Does he pay a
> license to use speech ? Does he Pay a fee for reading and math ? For
> the road he travelled to get the parts for his invention ?
>
> No and a hundred times NO.
Now that is justsuch bloody stupid attempt at an argument that its not
worth responding to. but I gues its worth you looking at who the old
wealthy were...those that owned land and food production, do you want to
go back to that ?
>
> HE has benefitted from millions of nameless ancestors; HE could simply
> be said to be paying his dues to them - to all mankind. He is not an
> alien contracted in to help us, who owes our race nothing. He is the
> direct product of the efforts of genertations.
>
> If he see's so far, it is ONLY because he stands on the shoulders of
> giants.
the giants are only there because they go enough to grow, standing on
top of a dwarf does not help. It is interesting to note that the likes
of IBM can afford to spend 30 years researching and developing a new
idea, often with hundreds of people involved...where are these hundreds
of man years of labour going to get apid from ?
>
>
> Your someone can earn his living by PRODUCING, manufactoring products
> based on his discovery JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES. He will then be
> in competition with other people. If he makes a better implementation
> of his discovery, people will surely notice and the market will reward
> him (is that not the Right Wing ideology ?).
So, Ok, because he knows that as soon as his product hits the shelves it
will be copied, the competition will only be a month or so behind (if at
all), explain why he would invest to develop a product when he knows he
will never earn enough to cover the costs of development.
>
> Not every inventor is a good businessman; and very few businessmen are
> good inventors. They need each other. A prolific inventor will be
> highly sought after and well paid. Without having to be granted a
> monopoly by patent.
Ahh...the paid word, why should the inventor be well paid when anyone
can simply copy the ideas at zero cost ?
>
> >it allows thm to have exclusive use of their
> >investment so they have a chance to recover those costs through sale.
>
> They could recover costs through production in competition with other
> commercial efforts in the same area, and reduce costs by using the
> research of others. This mutualism is self-rewarding: the more
> everyone contributes, the more costs is spread and reduced and the
> more prolific you can be. Additionally, one aspect of this will be
> better tools FOR the research and development, again accelerating and
> aplifying your own efforts.
So, where as someone spent one million dollars developing say the
speadsheet, at the time it is a unique idea, he produces a disk with it
on, someone however buys one copy then goes into production themselves,
after all there is no copyright or patent to stop him. Because he does
not have to recover the 1 million he can sell his product for half the
cost, and because it is exactly the same product as the original no one
buys the original.
>
> Simular to the fashion in which the GPL works; infact, you could say I
> wish to GPL the entire body of knowledge the human race possesses.
And exactly which people are making aliving from GPL ?, perhaps they
have real jobs the pay them, and the reason they can get apid is that
their work their is protected.
>
> >the alternative is to simply invest zero, wait for someone else to do it
> >for you and simply steal their efforts.
>
> It is not 'theft' - no one is deprived of the item; it is not in short
> supply - it can be infinitly reproduced for little cost.
No it becomes VERY SHORT supply. If for example I was to produce some
electronic gadget the first theing I will do it seal it up in epoxy or
something else to make it much harder for the opposition to steal the
circuit, the other things is to make it unrepairable after all it is in
my financial interest to sell more of them, not to have them fixed, in
fact I would not allow for spare parts to be produced, diagrams produced
etc, after all I have only a short time to recover my development costs.
not only that products will not have any warranty, thats simply another
cost that can not be bourne by the producer.
So now we get into massive consumer waste.
>
> And in return, they benefit from the efforts of others, also for free.
And so they in return pay nothing to the developer.
>
> >This applies to all entertainment, technology, medicines etc...do you
> >really want a world where there is zero progress
>
> "zero progress" is the conclusion of a weak mind.
Oh, so where is the billion of dollars in development costs for
medicines going to come from ?
>
> The Open Source movement is a direct counter example.
Which has produced what that is worthwhile ? Sorry, linux does not count
as otjer commercial systems are easier to use for the majority of
people, easier to maintain for the same group of people.
It also ignores tha none of the opensource people are doing it as the
sole source of income, they all work for some other company that has
something that is protected so they can earn money from it to pay the
workers.
>
>
> Brendan (Avatar)
Keith Whitehead
bt <b...@memelabs.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Translation: if you are making a fortune out of it, you are not an
> unbiased commentator.
>
> >Until you have one, youo are entitled to your opinion.
>
> I do infact own many copyrights.
And do they earn you a living, or are you getting that because the work
you do can be protected ?
Chrissy
> The Open Source movement is a direct counter example.
The Open Source movement relies on people developing
small bits of poorly defined add-ons to a bits and pieces
system in an adhoc way to address a very specific need
that is then forced to address a general need.
An integrated, formalized approach to development can
produce better products but, without IP no company could
do this. Development would still happen but people and
organizations will only develop for themselves. There will
be no general development companies because no one
will buy products that they are free to copy. IP is necessary.
Chrissy.
mr-p
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 00:00:34 +1200, mr-p <mr...@home.xx> wrote:
>
>
>>Bobs wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Irrelevant. My point still stands. Mp3.com is a haven for illegal music.
>>
>>Prove it
>
>
> Hey -- P2P networks and many other repositories often cary music for
> which the user has paid a legitimate fee to use.
Quite so, and my challenge to bobs to provide proof was prompted by the
memory that mp3.com payed out $53.4 million to Universal in settlement
of a copyright suit, $20million to EMI and similar amounts to other
record companies in shares and cash, and entered into agreements to
legitimately distribute their music.
Your comments are well informed and researched.
bobs OTOH is a ranting fuckwit
Hop Sc0tch
"Chrissy" <C...@home.gen.nz> wrote:
>
> An integrated, formalized approach to development can
> produce better products but, without IP no company could
> do this. Development would still happen but people and
> organizations will only develop for themselves. There will
> be no general development companies because no one
> will buy products that they are free to copy. IP is necessary.
>
> Chrissy.
and I would say that without mass consumption and comercialisation of
these products then the costs of those that are left on the market will
rise.
mr-p
bt
<k.j.wh...@massey.ac.nz> wrote:
>> I do infact own many copyrights.
>
>And do they earn you a living,
No - I charge no royalties. It's for the benefit of mankind.
>or are you getting that because the work you do can be protected ?
No again. I repair computers; I often give away free advice in this
very news group.
bt
<k.j.wh...@massey.ac.nz> wrote:
>> People would invest even MORE in new technology, as this would be the
>> ONLY way of maintaining a competitive edge. Hoarding of patents and
>> levying of licenses would cease to be the driving force.
>
>Bollocks, why invest hunderds of millions of dollars when the chances of
>being able to repay that cost is slim.
Development only costs 'hundreds of millions' of dollars now because
it is increasingly untenable to find alternative methods or
implementations to avoid breaching someone elses overly broad patent.
By removing patents from the equation, we reduce the development costs
buy a factor of ten at least.
By selling the resulting fitter product, the development costs are
recovered much as now. The consumer benefits from superior products at
a better price; the industry benefits from the increased competition
and innovation.
A few rich people have to get out and actually work, rather than dream
up onerous licensing demands (like Microsoft do).
And finally, a great body of knowledge was actually paid for by the
tax payer, in the form of research grants from governments all around
the world. Products from these should be priced at cost plus a small
profit incentive; development cost recovery is already paid for. And
yet we do not see this; the taxpayer gets to pay TWICE.
>> Additionally, freed from the self-destructive straight jacket of IP
>> law, poor and rich nations alike would benefit to the individual
>> health of each citizen; medical costs would plummet.
>
>as would quality.
PROVE IT.
>Last I heard was that is cost more than 1 BILLION in
>the development of each new drug to hit the shelves.
You must understand that most of this (inflated) cost is due to trying
to find drugs that CAN be patented; naturally occuring substances
cannot. So they must make work-alike artificial ones so they can be
patented, granting a monopoly.
And I think in all other cases that (inflated and unsubstantiated
assertion) of 1 Billion dollars can be spread amoungst all
participants.
And there are other solutions to this problem also.
But you do not want to here them - you are intoxicated by your own
ideology.
>Why invest that
>money when you can wait, analyse someone elses efforts and simply copy
>it for less than 1/1000th of the cost.
Because someone else will get in before you and you will have NOTHING
to sell what so ever.
And EVERYONE would get it for 1/1000th of the cost - because everyone
would be shareing the development effort!
Can't you see that ?
>> High technology would accelerate in leaps and bounds because
>> restrictive and anti-competitive licenses would be impossible - one
>> company could no longer hold an entire industry to ransom because it
>> held a key patent.
>
>Instead, no one would invest.
EVERYONE would invest.
>You make the presumption that every line
>of investigation becomes a commercial success, that is not so, the need
>the successes to pay for the failures.
That is a ridiculous assertion. I make no such presumption; I have
stated no such thing nor inferred it.
Your assertion is the work of someone losing a debate. You are in
effect INVENTING an argument you can win and pretending it was mine.
Laughable.
>> The massive expense and beurocracy involved with enforcing this silly
>> idea would be dismissed.
>
>Because there will be nothing to enforce, development will stop.
That is another assertion. Devoid of ALL substantiation.
You are not very good at this.
The fatc is Keith, history shows the exact opposite. And we even have
contemporary examples.
Additionally, we have examples - countless - of the current patent
system STIFLING innovation; destroying competition; and costing us all
a lot of extra money.
>> The cost of software and literature would fall, as reproduction and
>> distribution costs would be eliminated.
>
>As would development stop.
PROOF.
You know, the stuff that convinces people.
Where is yours ?
>> Products would succeed on their merits - quality, value and
>> applicability.
>
>and someone simply steals what you have done.
It's impossible to steal. The originator is not deprived of it.
>Hey look at that...this
>wally spent millions developing this software,
The cost would be zero or a tiny fraction of 'millions'.
>I can copy the disk for $1-50 and sell it for $3.
Software, as with virtually ALL information or knowledge, can be
distributed for 'free' over the internet.
(you really did pick a stupid example BTW)
>No costs to me...glad that chump did all the work and met all the expenses.
They call it 'Open Source', and it gains in strength daily as more and
more people find it superior.
>> Development costs would plummet as unique and elegant solutions could
>> be pllied without regard to paying some outrageous or burdensome
>> license.
>
>Oh, and where are thee going to come from ? perhaps everyone will also
>work for no pay.
People will earn their money from selling the physical products or
their superior skills.
Just as they do now.
>> Research would accelerate 100 fold as 'reinventing the wheel' would
>> become un-necessary to get around patents.
>
>You still don't get it do you.
YOU are the one who does not get it. YOU are an apologist for the
status quo.
>Development costs millions to billions of
>dollars...
Soley BECAUSE of the need to avoid other people's patents.
>where does this money come from ? As for the not reinventing
>the wheel, that is where so much development has come from.
The universe does not HAVE TO provide multiple solutions to every
problem just to suit our stupid patent system.
And increasingly provides ONLY one.
THOSE sole solutions should NOT be patentable. But are. And this makes
the government a party to monopolisation of the market.
>> The argument that we could not have the current state of the art
>> without Patents is spurious and without historical backing.
>
>It is self evident when you actually think the problem through
>rationally.
It cannot be self evident when history directly contradicts it.
What part of 'history proves you wrong' DON'T you get ?!?!
>Actually though, history is full of examples of ideas being
>stolen and the originators going broke.
No few of which 'stole' ideas from others themselves.
No few of which were stolen by commercial interests.
No few of which freely GAVE away their discoveries.
>> • People invent and create for pleasure or saving of labour. This has
>> been the course of human technology for all but the last 300 years.
>> The key developments in human development were not as a result of
>> patents or copyright, and did not take advantage of them.
>
>Such as ?
>Well I guess there is fire, and there is the wheel.
Yes; also language and agrculture. All of human development until
about 300 years ago when the first patents and copyrights were brough
into law.
Origianlly, copyright was for 14 years only, and applied only to
publishers. The first application of it was in regards to Shakespare's
plays. 1796 IIRC.
All other uses were unregulated.
>> • History demonstrates that the primary force behind human development
>> and technology has been the free exchange of information; much of our
>> Western society got it's start from pirated knowledge or knowledge
>> freely given.
>
>Actually much of it has been through warfare.
Warfare is a symptom, not a cause.
>When though you look at
>the development of technology in the last 50 years it has been at an
>accelerating rate.
It has been accelerating for 10,000 years at an exponential rate. The
last 50 years have seen this curve come within a single human life
time - that is all.
No magic. Not the result of patents.
>> • If Science operated the restrictive nonsense that passes for IP law,
>> science would NOT progress and we would all still live in caves. This
>> demonstrates clearly the fundemental flaw in the entire IP ideology -
>> and ideology that benefits the few at the massive expense of the many.
>
>untrue.
Exactly true.
>> • Knowledge is perhaps the only infinite resource we have. It can be
>> replicated at negliable cost infinitly, and applied to indefinite
>> numbers of situations rendering many novel solutions to real problems;
>> it also builds upon itself in a way impossible in physics.
>
>Thats funny, it is physics that have allowed for the current generation
>of computers.
What a stupid thing to say.
>>It's value
>> is impossible to gauge - but ONLY when freely applied and shared - if
>> that is retarded, the value of it quickly drops to zero. It is
>> dismaying that with the ONE infinite resource the universe has granted
>> us, that we stupidly, obscenely so, IMPOSE an artificial scarcity upon
>> it!
>
>the alternative is for companies to go into areas where there is finite
>resources, food, water, housing, clothing. Not only that the value of
>knowledge also drops to zero and no one works for nothing.
People DO work for nothing all the time.
And knowledge's value rises in direct proprtion to the un-restricted
use OF it.
>> >Patents are there to protect the costly investment someone has made,
>>
>> A someone that did NOT discover his discovery in isolation from all
>> that mankind has discovered before hand.
>
>That is the whole point, it is because they can patent ideas that it
>makes worthwhile doing continued research, because you getting paid for
>the work previously done it gives the resources to move forward.
Then explain why two of the most fundemental works of science in the
last 100 years - Quantum Theory and General Relativity - were NOT
patented. Nor any of the other works of science, upon which you depend
for your very living and survival.
>> Does he pay royalties to the inventor of the Wheel ? Does he pay a
>> license to use speech ? Does he Pay a fee for reading and math ? For
>> the road he travelled to get the parts for his invention ?
>>
>> No and a hundred times NO.
>
>Now that is justsuch bloody stupid attempt at an argument that its not
>worth responding to.
You CANNOT respond to it.
It defeats your argument - if patents are so bloody fine and great,
why arn't the most important works and discoveries patented ?
>but I gues its worth you looking at who the old
>wealthy were...those that owned land and food production, do you want to
>go back to that ?
We already ARE back to that, Keith.
They also now OWN what you are allowed to think about or be told
about.
YOU said it.
>> HE has benefitted from millions of nameless ancestors; HE could simply
>> be said to be paying his dues to them - to all mankind. He is not an
>> alien contracted in to help us, who owes our race nothing. He is the
>> direct product of the efforts of genertations.
>>
>> If he see's so far, it is ONLY because he stands on the shoulders of
>> giants.
>
>the giants are only there because they go enough to grow,
All the classical philosophers and 'scientists', inventors and
innovators had patents did they ?
The Greeks, Romans, and Egyptian's built world dominating empires and
founded our current civilisation because they had patents ?
Laughable. And incorrect.
MOST of them had inherited fortunes or were the owners of industries;
rich men with hundreds of slaves. Inventing things was a hobby they
were NOT paid for. Inventions produced were NOT patented or charged
for (although the products were).
>standing on top of a dwarf does not help.
Your ignorance is as boundless as it is blissful.
Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Tesla - all were giants. And countless
others not as famous.
IBM, Intel, Eli Lilly, and all your other corporate hero's have simply
USED this knowledge for enriching themselves, filling in a few details
where they think the money is to be made.
>It is interesting to note that the likes
>of IBM can afford to spend 30 years researching and developing a new
>idea, often with hundreds of people involved...where are these hundreds
>of man years of labour going to get apid from ?
If you ran a business like that under my paradigm, you'd be OUT of
business.
Which is why I have repeatedly told you that business would not be run
LIKE that.
>> Your someone can earn his living by PRODUCING, manufactoring products
>> based on his discovery JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES. He will then be
>> in competition with other people. If he makes a better implementation
>> of his discovery, people will surely notice and the market will reward
>> him (is that not the Right Wing ideology ?).
>
>So, Ok, because he knows that as soon as his product hits the shelves it
>will be copied, the competition will only be a month or so behind (if at
>all), explain why he would invest to develop a product when he knows he
>will never earn enough to cover the costs of development.
He will earn enough, because the costs of development are spread
widely, have been reduced by the sharing of information freely and by
the improving technology.
Thusly the costs are reduced wonderfully; such that the sale of
merchandise ould pay for it.
Co-opertaives building on the work of previous members would further
reduce the cost of newer development.
Can't commerce handle comptetion on such a rigourous scale ?
>> Not every inventor is a good businessman; and very few businessmen are
>> good inventors. They need each other. A prolific inventor will be
>> highly sought after and well paid. Without having to be granted a
>> monopoly by patent.
>
>Ahh...the paid word, why should the inventor be well paid when anyone
>can simply copy the ideas at zero cost ?
Because in such an business enviroment, the guy with the new idea is
worth gold.
And the guy with new ideas all the time is beyond worth.
>> >it allows thm to have exclusive use of their
>> >investment so they have a chance to recover those costs through sale.
>>
>> They could recover costs through production in competition with other
>> commercial efforts in the same area, and reduce costs by using the
>> research of others. This mutualism is self-rewarding: the more
>> everyone contributes, the more costs is spread and reduced and the
>> more prolific you can be. Additionally, one aspect of this will be
>> better tools FOR the research and development, again accelerating and
>> aplifying your own efforts.
>
>So, where as someone spent one million dollars developing say the
>speadsheet,
The spreadsheet was the work of a small team, one man IIRC, who did it
in his spare time.
The idea was later stolen by your paragons of virtue in industry.
>at the time it is a unique idea, he produces a disk with it
>on, someone however buys one copy then goes into production themselves,
>after all there is no copyright or patent to stop him. Because he does
>not have to recover the 1 million he can sell his product for half the
>cost, and because it is exactly the same product as the original no one
>buys the original.
Or, the original guy spent a few hours of his hobby time putting the
finishing touches on a spreadsheet program he downloaded the source
code for from the Net. Added a couple of features.
He uploads his updated version to the Net for free. Because he felt
like it (the person who did not feel like it did not upload it, and
remains anonymous).
Another person does the same some time later.
And in this fashion, after a while a good spread sheet evolves with
just the features everyone wants, for free. The cost (in time and
research) was spread over hundreds or thousands of people; the
individual cost being negliable.
>> Simular to the fashion in which the GPL works; infact, you could say I
>> wish to GPL the entire body of knowledge the human race possesses.
>
>And exactly which people are making aliving from GPL ?,
Quite are few thousand, and it early days yet. Millions in the near
future as Open Source becomes more accepted.
Most people however will not need to be paid. They work at normal jobs
and only programmed as a hobby. They are happy with it like that.
>perhaps they
>have real jobs the pay them, and the reason they can get apid is that
>their work their is protected.
Or, they have a day job in some other industry - perhaps writing
special purpose software derived from open source, or in training
maybe, or maybe even in producing new products using the software they
or others helped imporve via open source.
Millions of possibilities really.
>> >the alternative is to simply invest zero, wait for someone else to do it
>> >for you and simply steal their efforts.
>>
>> It is not 'theft' - no one is deprived of the item; it is not in short
>> supply - it can be infinitly reproduced for little cost.
>
>No it becomes VERY SHORT supply. If for example I was to produce some
>electronic gadget the first theing I will do it seal it up in epoxy or
>something else to make it much harder for the opposition to steal the
>circuit,
Illegal and pointless - any serious competitor would get past that. As
they do now.
>the other things is to make it unrepairable after all it is in
>my financial interest to sell more of them,
The first competitor to make it repaireable would see you out of
business.
>not to have them fixed, in
>fact I would not allow for spare parts to be produced,
Illegal. you must adhere to the CGA.
>diagrams produced etc,
Illegal under the GPL.
>after all I have only a short time to recover my development costs.
Your development costs were small to start with.
>not only that products will not have any warranty,
Illegal under the CGA.
>thats simply another
>cost that can not be bourne by the producer.
Luckily, because we have the source code we can fix it ourselves
anyway.
>So now we get into massive consumer waste.
No, as we recycle them or re-program/reuse them.
>> And in return, they benefit from the efforts of others, also for free.
>
>And so they in return pay nothing to the developer.
Yes. But because everyone is doing it, no one is actually out of
pocket. Money you spend on YOUR project is recovered by money SAVED by
using someone elses project for free.
>> >This applies to all entertainment, technology, medicines etc...do you
>> >really want a world where there is zero progress
>>
>> "zero progress" is the conclusion of a weak mind.
>
>Oh, so where is the billion of dollars in development costs for
>medicines going to come from ?
They can and are being made for free right now.
I am running such a program on my spare comp right now; researching
possible cures for cancer. Along with millions of other people.
A task impossible or financially impossible any other way.
And if we can find a cure for cancer by computing proteins, why can't
we make a better computer chip the same way ?
Total cost ? Zero.
>> The Open Source movement is a direct counter example.
>
>Which has produced what that is worthwhile ?
Gigabytes of software, that is used by millions of people every day.
And the number is growing.
>Sorry, linux does not count
>as otjer commercial systems are easier to use for the majority of
>people, easier to maintain for the same group of people.
Linux DOES count because it IS worth while; and being worth while is
Good Enough. Being used by the 'majority of people' is a poor second
as far as justifications go. And do no think your shifting of goal
posts escaped my notice. You getting desperate ?
2. Linux IS easy to use, and getting easier all the time. Infact, in
the last 3 years Linux has caught up to Windows in most ways - it took
Microsoft 20+ years to reach this point and Linux perhaps 5. At this
rate, Linux will surpass Windows in every fashsion in the next few
years.
3. Linux IS easier to maintain, as it needs less maintenance than
Windows (it's main commercial competitor).
4. Linux is not the only example of Open Source or Free Software or
GPL software. Others abound and are responsible for the greatest
repository of knowledge and progress ever conceived by humanity: the
Internet. It was NOT the work of Patents or Copyright or Commerce:
they were simply incapable of it. And this is VERY telling of the
flaws of the commerce-centric ideology you have.
>It also ignores tha none of the opensource people are doing it as the
>sole source of income,
No one said that it HAD to be the sole source of income, and I refuse
to see why it should be assumed so.
That is only ONE of your mistakes.
>they all work for some other company that has
>something that is protected so they can earn money from it to pay the
>workers.
Or they work at the local supermarket, university or garage.
Hop Sc0tch
bt <b...@memelabs.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Development only costs 'hundreds of millions' of dollars now because
> it is increasingly untenable to find alternative methods or
> implementations to avoid breaching someone elses overly broad patent.
No, take the CD for instance, that was a new development that took a hell
of a lot of money to develop into a commercial product.
>
> By removing patents from the equation, we reduce the development costs
> buy a factor of ten at least.
Your evidence for this is what (no hope and a prayer answers)
>
> By selling the resulting fitter product, the development costs are
> recovered much as now. The consumer benefits from superior products at
> a better price; the industry benefits from the increased competition
> and innovation.
So, what you are asying that that a new drug therapy that cost about
1BILLION to develop will no only cost 100 MILLION, and that enough sales
can be made in the first few months to cover the 100 million before all
the non-research places simply clone the drug ?
>
> A few rich people have to get out and actually work, rather than dream
> up onerous licensing demands (like Microsoft do).
Ahh...so this is actually an anti-microsoft rant.
>
> And finally, a great body of knowledge was actually paid for by the
> tax payer, in the form of research grants from governments all around
> the world. Products from these should be priced at cost plus a small
> profit incentive; development cost recovery is already paid for. And
> yet we do not see this; the taxpayer gets to pay TWICE.
Actually, in NZ the majority of research is paid for by private
companies, the government is rapidly becomming a minor player. Also
research personel who are any good are also being attracted to private
companies away from government jobs because the pay and working
conditions are better. It should be noted though that a LOT of NZs
overseas earning come from patents held within the primary produce ares,
that could all be removed overnight which would lead to massive job cuts.
>
> >> Additionally, freed from the self-destructive straight jacket of IP
> >> law, poor and rich nations alike would benefit to the individual
> >> health of each citizen; medical costs would plummet.
> >
> >as would quality.
>
> PROVE IT.
Cost of new medicine to develop is over 1 BILLION dollars, only 1 drug
in 100 makes it to the shelves, that is a LOT of money to recover. With
no incentive to develop new drugs (ie costs high, risks high, return sod
all as it can be copied at nil return) then development will stop. That
is self evident.
>
> >Last I heard was that is cost more than 1 BILLION in
> >the development of each new drug to hit the shelves.
>
> You must understand that most of this (inflated) cost is due to trying
> to find drugs that CAN be patented; naturally occuring substances
> cannot. So they must make work-alike artificial ones so they can be
> patented, granting a monopoly.
Absolutly correct, it is only a NEW drugs that can be patented, all the
freebees you describe are myth, but tell me of all the cancer cures,
aids drugs, treatments for depression etc that are available out in the
garden. Show me the anasthetics that are used in operating theatres etc
that are freely available, all these things have changed.
>
> And I think in all other cases that (inflated and unsubstantiated
> assertion) of 1 Billion dollars can be spread amoungst all
> participants.
What all participants, are you now saying that we only need one drug
company, foolish in the extreme.
>
> And there are other solutions to this problem also.
such as ?
>
> But you do not want to here them - you are intoxicated by your own
> ideology.
How the hell do you know what my ideology is...nice try for an out
though, that way you do not have to justify a clearly wrong idea
yourself.
>
> >Why invest that
> >money when you can wait, analyse someone elses efforts and simply copy
> >it for less than 1/1000th of the cost.
>
> Because someone else will get in before you and you will have NOTHING
> to sell what so ever.
>
> And EVERYONE would get it for 1/1000th of the cost - because everyone
> would be shareing the development effort!
>
> Can't you see that ?
Yes, I can see that you invest hundreds of million of dollars of money
into a new product, and that anyone can simply clone it. They can do it
cheaper becuase they do not have any research costs of pay off. The
consumer gets the first item much cheaper, but the second one never
arrives, the financial risks are too great. But I love your term
"because everyone would be shareing the development effort!" as that is
exactly what a patent does, companies who wish to use the developmnet of
another pay money for those rights on a per item or some other basis, ie
the are now meeting a share of the development costs.
> >Instead, no one would invest.
>
> EVERYONE would invest.
Why ? there will be no financial return. I am willing to be you will not
work for someone who does not pay you, there is no difference.
>
> >You make the presumption that every line
> >of investigation becomes a commercial success, that is not so, the need
> >the successes to pay for the failures.
>
> That is a ridiculous assertion. I make no such presumption; I have
> stated no such thing nor inferred it.
So where does the money come from for all the failures ?
>
> Your assertion is the work of someone losing a debate. You are in
> effect INVENTING an argument you can win and pretending it was mine.
>
> Laughable.
So, Ok..let go slowly. You invent 100 ideas, each costs 100 million to
develop into a commercial product, that gives you a cost of 10 billion
dollars. Only one product is a success, now, you have 10 billion to
recover, so lets be generous and make that only 1/10 say 1 billion. You
produce the article, however 6 weeks later a clone comes out, cheaper
than you sell, after all they don't have the development costs, so your
sales plumet. the development costs have not gone away, yet you have no
sales to meet them.
>
> >> The massive expense and beurocracy involved with enforcing this silly
> >> idea would be dismissed.
> >
> >Because there will be nothing to enforce, development will stop.
>
> That is another assertion. Devoid of ALL substantiation.
logiocal deduction. I have no proof that *I* will die if I jump from a
plane with no paracute, however logically it is self evident.
>
> You are not very good at this.
>
> The fatc is Keith, history shows the exact opposite. And we even have
> contemporary examples.
please name them.
>
> Additionally, we have examples - countless - of the current patent
> system STIFLING innovation; destroying competition; and costing us all
> a lot of extra money.
evidence of this is ? Seems to me that technology in real terms is
getting much cheaper. My first computer cost me more than 15% of my
gross income when I bough it in 1981, my new one that is a damn sight
more powerfull lost me 1/3 of that.
>
> >> The cost of software and literature would fall, as reproduction and
> >> distribution costs would be eliminated.
> >
> >As would development stop.
>
> PROOF.
Self evident. high costs to develop, no gurantee of return will mean no
development.
>
> You know, the stuff that convinces people.
>
> Where is yours ?
and yours is where ?.
look around your home as see all the technology, all that has be built
in a climate of patents and copyright. Development is infact
accellerating. My proof is all around you, yours is where ?
>
> >> Products would succeed on their merits - quality, value and
> >> applicability.
> >
> >and someone simply steals what you have done.
>
> It's impossible to steal. The originator is not deprived of it.
no, he is deprived of an income based on his work.
>
> >Hey look at that...this
> >wally spent millions developing this software,
>
> The cost would be zero or a tiny fraction of 'millions'.
>
> >I can copy the disk for $1-50 and sell it for $3.
>
> Software, as with virtually ALL information or knowledge, can be
> distributed for 'free' over the internet.
So where is the costs of development comming from, you model will show
then that all development costs must be met by one person as everyone
esle can get it for free.
>
> (you really did pick a stupid example BTW)
no its an excellent example. You emply say 100 people to develop a new
game, each of these people get paid say $50,000pa, it takes 1 year to
develop the product, that means that you have paid $5 million in wages.
Now, where are you going to get that 5 million from, after all everyone
can copy the game for free over the internet, so there is no income
stream there at all, even if that game is the best game ever produced it
will not matter, as it can not be protected by copyright or patent and
anyone can distribute it over the net. So where is that 5 million
comming from, perhaps the 100 staff will simply work for free, but then
again they need money to buy food, clothes, shelter etc, so that will
not happen either.
>
> >No costs to me...glad that chump did all the work and met all the expenses.
>
> They call it 'Open Source', and it gains in strength daily as more and
> more people find it superior.
Than what ?, where are all these earth shattering products, open source
has been around since the days of home computers, surely 25+ years is
enough time to make an impact, and it has not happened.
>
> >> Development costs would plummet as unique and elegant solutions could
> >> be pllied without regard to paying some outrageous or burdensome
> >> license.
> >
> >Oh, and where are thee going to come from ? perhaps everyone will also
> >work for no pay.
>
> People will earn their money from selling the physical products or
> their superior skills.
but not as a programmer as there is not financila return for this, so
people will simply become skilled in other areas where they have control
over the market they are in.
>
> Just as they do now.
Who do now, the programmers who are in paid emploment because they know
that their work will earn a revenue stream will will then pay them for
the next project ?
>
> >> Research would accelerate 100 fold as 'reinventing the wheel' would
> >> become un-necessary to get around patents.
> >
> >You still don't get it do you.
>
> YOU are the one who does not get it. YOU are an apologist for the
> status quo.
the status quo works.
>
> >Development costs millions to billions of
> >dollars...
>
> Soley BECAUSE of the need to avoid other people's patents.
No, because people expect to be paid for their time, the majority of
costs in any organisation is labour costs. people quite rightly want to
be rewarded for their efforts.
>
> >where does this money come from ? As for the not reinventing
> >the wheel, that is where so much development has come from.
>
> The universe does not HAVE TO provide multiple solutions to every
> problem just to suit our stupid patent system.
But now you are saying that there will be no refinement of a product,
that is where these multiple solutions come from.....the idea of someone
who thinks they can do it better.
>
> And increasingly provides ONLY one.
A monoploy ?
>
> THOSE sole solutions should NOT be patentable. But are. And this makes
> the government a party to monopolisation of the market.
isn't only one solution the ultimate monopoly, would you prefer it it
only Microsoft products exist ?
>
> >> The argument that we could not have the current state of the art
> >> without Patents is spurious and without historical backing.
> >
> >It is self evident when you actually think the problem through
> >rationally.
>
> It cannot be self evident when history directly contradicts it.
>
> What part of 'history proves you wrong' DON'T you get ?!?!
the port where you have not shown any examples at all, after all history
must be full of examples then that have made momentus changes to our
lifestyle all for free.
>
> >Actually though, history is full of examples of ideas being
> >stolen and the originators going broke.
>
> No few of which 'stole' ideas from others themselves.
>
> No few of which were stolen by commercial interests.
>
> No few of which freely GAVE away their discoveries.
All true, however there are even more examples where companies have
licenced ideas from others and have gone onto to build a better product.
>
> Yes; also language and agrculture. All of human development until
> about 300 years ago when the first patents and copyrights were brough
> into law.
Language is neither here nor there, monkeys have language. Agriculture
was a development that allowed survival.
>
> Origianlly, copyright was for 14 years only, and applied only to
> publishers. The first application of it was in regards to Shakespare's
> plays. 1796 IIRC.
>
> All other uses were unregulated.
And the number of people who could read back then was...?
>
> >> • History demonstrates that the primary force behind human development
> >> and technology has been the free exchange of information; much of our
> >> Western society got it's start from pirated knowledge or knowledge
> >> freely given.
> >
> >Actually much of it has been through warfare.
>
> Warfare is a symptom, not a cause.
no, some of the greatest developments were made during the wars, some of
the computer algorythms developed at Bletchly Park during WWII have only
recently been decalassified, they were so ahead of their time.
>
> >When though you look at
> >the development of technology in the last 50 years it has been at an
> >accelerating rate.
>
> It has been accelerating for 10,000 years at an exponential rate. The
> last 50 years have seen this curve come within a single human life
> time - that is all.
Its is als because people have been able to make money from it. Back 200
years ago the labour and time taken to duplicate something was huge, a
book for example...no photocopiers, scanners, OCR, etc it was all done
by hand and checked by hand.
>
> No magic. Not the result of patents.
No the result of lack of technology that allowed for quick easy
reproduction.
> >Thats funny, it is physics that have allowed for the current generation
> >of computers.
>
> What a stupid thing to say.
Why, it is relying on things like quantum mechanics etc. Do you have any
understanding of chip development ?.
> People DO work for nothing all the time.
only because society can afford to feed clothe and look after these
people.
>
> And knowledge's value rises in direct proprtion to the un-restricted
> use OF it.
No evidence of this.
> Then explain why two of the most fundemental works of science in the
> last 100 years - Quantum Theory and General Relativity - were NOT
> patented. Nor any of the other works of science, upon which you depend
> for your very living and survival.
These works have in themselves no commercial use. Darwins theory of
evolution was also no patented. so what.
> It defeats your argument - if patents are so bloody fine and great,
> why arn't the most important works and discoveries patented ?
they are! The microprocessor has had one of the biggest impacts on
humanity of anything ever invented, it is patented as are all the
subsequent developments that have enabled computers to become faster and
more flexable. medicines are another, tens of million of people lives
have been saved through patented medicines.
> We already ARE back to that, Keith.
no, I can grow my own food and pay tythe based on that production to no
one.
>
> They also now OWN what you are allowed to think about or be told
> about.
Again not true, it it were we would have no amnesty international,
greenpeace, communist party, rightwing party etc.
> >the giants are only there because they go enough to grow,
>
> All the classical philosophers and 'scientists', inventors and
> innovators had patents did they ?
yes.
>
> The Greeks, Romans, and Egyptian's built world dominating empires and
> founded our current civilisation because they had patents ?
>
> Laughable. And incorrect.
wrong. Their patents we through not sharing knowledge, for example the
way to make steal was s secret that gave that country superior millitary
might. other example are of cannon makers, changes in sadle design, etc.
Knowledge was kept "in house" by the threat of death, there was no
internet to quietly send them elsewhere.
>
> MOST of them had inherited fortunes or were the owners of industries;
> rich men with hundreds of slaves. Inventing things was a hobby they
> were NOT paid for. Inventions produced were NOT patented or charged
> for (although the products were).
The why is it that many of the "old rich" are no longer at the top ?
>
> >standing on top of a dwarf does not help.
>
> Your ignorance is as boundless as it is blissful.
et tu Brute
>
> Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Tesla - all were giants. And countless
> others not as famous.
And they mad use of their inventions how ? Well there was the lecturing
circuit where people paid them for lectures...hardly free knowledge is
it.
>
> IBM, Intel, Eli Lilly, and all your other corporate hero's have simply
> USED this knowledge for enriching themselves, filling in a few details
> where they think the money is to be made.
Filling in major details. the world knowledge is doubling every 18
months.
>
> If you ran a business like that under my paradigm, you'd be OUT of
> business.
yes, and that 30 years worth of research would not be done, that would
inhibit development untold.
>
> Which is why I have repeatedly told you that business would not be run
> LIKE that.
so you say. Do you think that the knowledge any of your heroes above
gained their knowledge over night ? some of it took decades.
>
> He will earn enough, because the costs of development are spread
> widely, have been reduced by the sharing of information freely and by
> the improving technology.
But that is what patents do, they allow the patent holder to spread the
costs. those whom wish to make use of the patented material can do so.
> Co-opertaives building on the work of previous members would further
> reduce the cost of newer development.
As they are now.
>
> Can't commerce handle comptetion on such a rigourous scale ?
We do have it. but yes, commerce can not handle unfair competition where
one person can freely take ideas from another.
> Because in such an business enviroment, the guy with the new idea is
> worth gold.
no he is not, because his ideas are worth nothing, anyone can have them
for free.
>
> And the guy with new ideas all the time is beyond worth.
Again untrue, if all his ideas can be had for free no one will pay them
just as I am sure you do not work for free.
>
> The spreadsheet was the work of a small team, one man IIRC, who did it
> in his spare time.
>
> The idea was later stolen by your paragons of virtue in industry.
yep, it was not patented properly. So now visicalc exists no more.
>
> Or, the original guy spent a few hours of his hobby time putting the
> finishing touches on a spreadsheet program he downloaded the source
> code for from the Net. Added a couple of features.
however you have not stated where the original devlopment came from.
>
> He uploads his updated version to the Net for free. Because he felt
> like it (the person who did not feel like it did not upload it, and
> remains anonymous).
So again he has "patented" his work. Ie if his development allows hime
to work more efficiently than they guy next door he can make more money
and thus send the guy nest door broke. No fredom of knowledge here
either.
>
> Another person does the same some time later.
>
> And in this fashion, after a while a good spread sheet evolves with
> just the features everyone wants, for free. The cost (in time and
> research) was spread over hundreds or thousands of people; the
> individual cost being negliable.
So where are these programmers earning their money that pays for food,
clothing, etc ?
>
> >> Simular to the fashion in which the GPL works; infact, you could say I
> >> wish to GPL the entire body of knowledge the human race possesses.
> >
> >And exactly which people are making aliving from GPL ?,
>
> Quite are few thousand, and it early days yet. Millions in the near
> future as Open Source becomes more accepted.
Oh, how are they earning money from it when anyone can copy it for free ?
>
> Most people however will not need to be paid. They work at normal jobs
> and only programmed as a hobby. They are happy with it like that.
What jobs ?, perhaps it is because they are commercial programmers in a
real job that allows them to do a freebee as a hobby ? however if all
they "paid" work can be gained for free then they too will have to work
for free, after all what they produce has no commercial benefit as it
can be copied for free over the net.
>
> >perhaps they
> >have real jobs the pay them, and the reason they can get apid is that
> >their work their is protected.
>
> Or, they have a day job in some other industry - perhaps writing
> special purpose software derived from open source, or in training
> maybe, or maybe even in producing new products using the software they
> or others helped imporve via open source.
So all software will be a once only thing ?, after all once they have
written it once everyone else will have it for free so there is no
number two customer, which makes me wonder how number one customer is
going to recover the wages paid to the programmer.
>
> Millions of possibilities really.
none of which can exist as a reality.
> Illegal and pointless - any serious competitor would get past that. As
> they do now.
So then that product will not be developed.
>
> >the other things is to make it unrepairable after all it is in
> >my financial interest to sell more of them,
>
> The first competitor to make it repaireable would see you out of
> business.
no they too would be out of business as someone else simply copies what
they have done and have had none of the development costs.
>
> >not to have them fixed, in
> >fact I would not allow for spare parts to be produced,
>
> Illegal. you must adhere to the CGA.
Why ?
>
> >diagrams produced etc,
>
> Illegal under the GPL.
The that shows clearly that the GPL can only work in an enviroment where
the majority is via payware.
>
> >after all I have only a short time to recover my development costs.
>
> Your development costs were small to start with.
no evidence of this has yet been shown.
>
> >not only that products will not have any warranty,
>
> Illegal under the CGA.
then you can not afford to produce something.
>
> >thats simply another
> >cost that can not be bourne by the producer.
>
> Luckily, because we have the source code we can fix it ourselves
> anyway.
oh, the source code is a small part, what about the hardware ? i can
reload software, but I can not reapir a microprocessor.
>
> >So now we get into massive consumer waste.
>
> No, as we recycle them or re-program/reuse them.
So you want a black and white TV then ?
>
> Yes. But because everyone is doing it, no one is actually out of
> pocket. Money you spend on YOUR project is recovered by money SAVED by
> using someone elses project for free.
the farmer does not do it for free, neither does the builder, the
doctor, they all want to be paid. They will be the new wealthy because
you can not dupilcate land, food, housing. the programmer will be worth
nothing.
> >Oh, so where is the billion of dollars in development costs for
> >medicines going to come from ?
>
> They can and are being made for free right now.
Why ones?, which new ones ?
>
> I am running such a program on my spare comp right now; researching
> possible cures for cancer. Along with millions of other people.
>
> A task impossible or financially impossible any other way.
History shows you are wrong.
>
> And if we can find a cure for cancer by computing proteins, why can't
> we make a better computer chip the same way ?
So you have a cure for cancer, and once the computer is finished then
there is nothing more to do, no syntheseis development, so testing, no
research into other biological interactions, these things take years of
people paid time.
>
> Total cost ? Zero.
total costs lots because you are not adding in the costs you have met
yourself along with others. You forget you can only do this because of
what you have now.
> Gigabytes of software, that is used by millions of people every day.
> And the number is growing.
examples.
>
> >Sorry, linux does not count
> >as otjer commercial systems are easier to use for the majority of
> >people, easier to maintain for the same group of people.
>
> Linux DOES count because it IS worth while; and being worth while is
> Good Enough. Being used by the 'majority of people' is a poor second
> as far as justifications go. And do no think your shifting of goal
> posts escaped my notice. You getting desperate ?
but wait a minute, aren't you the one who says if someone can produce
something beter then the first person who does not keep up will go
broke, surely then the majority of people have spoken and choose to pay
for what they believe is a superior product.
>
> 2. Linux IS easy to use, and getting easier all the time. Infact, in
> the last 3 years Linux has caught up to Windows in most ways - it took
> Microsoft 20+ years to reach this point and Linux perhaps 5. At this
> rate, Linux will surpass Windows in every fashsion in the next few
> years.
no, linux is still much harder to use for the majority of people, jst
because you may feel that it is not an issue is neither here nor there.
I remember when all the PC weenies who candemed the Mac as real people
used command lines are now using what...GUI's too. It is ONLY because so
much of the paradigms behind the GUI have been developed commerciall
that linux has been able to catch up, there was no development work
needed.
>
> 3. Linux IS easier to maintain, as it needs less maintenance than
> Windows (it's main commercial competitor).
well I have a laptop at work that has run everyday for 3 years with
nothing more than a defrag.
>
> 4. Linux is not the only example of Open Source or Free Software or
> GPL software. Others abound and are responsible for the greatest
> repository of knowledge and progress ever conceived by humanity: the
> Internet. It was NOT the work of Patents or Copyright or Commerce:
> they were simply incapable of it. And this is VERY telling of the
> flaws of the commerce-centric ideology you have.
Actually the hardware behind the internet is patented and it started by
running on patented software. not only that when it first came out here
in NZ it was because NASA met the costs, you only have it because
someone saw financila and commercial gain, they have a limited supply
product that you can not duplicate, copy, give away, pirate or
otherwise. If you could do these things then they would not have
invested the billion of dollars.
>
> >It also ignores tha none of the opensource people are doing it as the
> >sole source of income,
>
> No one said that it HAD to be the sole source of income, and I refuse
> to see why it should be assumed so.
because the real guts behind software comes from professional
programmers whos income is derived from commercial software, amateurs
generate very little towards this fundamental core, they simply do not
have the knowledge, experiance and skills. Without this core there is
nothing else.
>
> That is only ONE of your mistakes.
no it is one of your fundamental ones, you fail to see that once
knowldge becomes free it has no value to anyone else and people will not
pay for something that can be gained for free, therefore the people who
create that knowledge will not be there because they can earn nothing
from it.
>
> Or they work at the local supermarket, university or garage.
In the main no they don't, the can not gain the knowledge, experiance
from those jobs to do the hard tasks. that requires professionals.
Peter B.
obviously wrote the words:
>No again. I repair computers; I often give away free advice in this
>very news group.
>
What's the old adage about the value of free advice?
Then there's Piet Hein's GrooK:
Shun advice
At any price
That's what I call
Good Advice.
Peter B.
<posta...@localhost.net> obviously wrote the words:
>So, Ok..let go slowly. You invent 100 ideas, each costs 100 million to
>develop into a commercial product, that gives you a cost of 10 billion
>dollars. Only one product is a success, now, you have 10 billion to
>recover, so lets be generous and make that only 1/10 say 1 billion. You
>produce the article, however 6 weeks later a clone comes out, cheaper
>than you sell, after all they don't have the development costs, so your
>sales plumet. the development costs have not gone away, yet you have no
>sales to meet them.
>
Reminds me of the first company I worked for. They got the patents
for a particular product - about five years in development, with some
10,000 people involved, plus plant and production lines to set up, as
well as destruction testing and all the rest. Product was supposed to
give them about $4.00 profit per item (selling at around $50). After
they produced a few million, and just before getting the things to
the market (worldwide), a new process was invented, producing a
replacement product that SOLD at $0.45 (the process was that much more
cost effective), with a profit margin of about half a cent.
Wonder why the company went belly up less than six months later?
bt
>> The Open Source movement is a direct counter example.
>
>The Open Source movement relies on people developing
>small bits of poorly defined add-ons
It does not.
>to a bits and pieces system
The system is so good an example of How to Do Things Right that most
universities use it as a core resource for teaching computer science.
So: You are totally wrong. As per usual.
>in an adhoc way
The entire Internet is ad-hoc; ad-hoc succeeded where your commercial
interests failed. Repeatedly. And still do.
>to address a very specific
Wrong.
It addresses a wide range of needs; indeed, hundreds of thousands or
millions. Each contributor had his only need, and contributed to
fulfil that. There have been hundreds of thousands of such
contributors. Hence, hundreds of thousands of needs are met.
Unlike commercial enterprise, where only one need is met: profit. All
other needs that are met are purely accidental.
>need that is then forced to address a general need.
There has been no force and there could not be.
The general needs are met because they are common and because people
wish to meet them.
This has been achived. It will be achived ever more profoundly.
Your argument is non existant.
>An integrated, formalized approach to development can
>produce better products but,
That is incorrect.
I think we have enough real world examples now to show that this
assumption of yours is flimsy at best, and outright wrong if the truth
be known.
>without IP no company could do this.
We do not need companies to do it AT ALL.
>Development would still happen but people and
>organizations will only develop for themselves.
Which is fine and as it should be.
There are enough people with a few hours spare each day to supply
hundreds of times the required man hours. For free.
>There will
>be no general development companies because no one
>will buy products that they are free to copy.
They may be able to copy the blueprints (source code). But until we
have 3d printers or nanotechnology, they will not be copying the
products. The physical products.
You will still have to buy them. Millions can be employed at this
level - and are, now. The vast bulk.
Except the products will be better and cheaper. Because every one's
best ideas can be used.
>IP is necessary.
It is not, and history shows this well.
Brendan (Avatar)
--
齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,�Join Electronic Frontiers New Zealand - ensure the future liberty of cyberspace in NZ. http://www.efnz.org.nz
mr-p
patent to delay or prevent the competitors product getting to market.
This is not fair competition or a free market, and allows companies with
speculative principle patents to control innovation to the detriment
of consumer choice.
The process of innovation is then subject to arbitration by the state at
great cost, with benefits only to the lawyers, who attempt to get the
judiciary to rule on highly technical judgement calls, usually
completely arbitrarily against innovations.
Drug patents are usually applied in ways that are detrimental to the
health of millions.
Hop Sc0tch
bt <b...@memelabs.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> The system is so good an example of How to Do Things Right that most
> universities use it as a core resource for teaching computer science.
so you have personal knowledge that "most universities" claim yo9u have
made
>
> So: You are totally wrong. As per usual.
Where is your eveidence ?
>
> >in an adhoc way
>
> The entire Internet is ad-hoc; ad-hoc succeeded where your commercial
> interests failed. Repeatedly. And still do.
No commercialisation of the internet is why you have access.
> It addresses a wide range of needs; indeed, hundreds of thousands or
> millions. Each contributor had his only need, and contributed to
> fulfil that. There have been hundreds of thousands of such
> contributors. Hence, hundreds of thousands of needs are met.
Or, because it is so poorly degined it does not meet the needs of people
and must be worked at.
>
> Unlike commercial enterprise, where only one need is met: profit. All
> other needs that are met are purely accidental.
That is a contradiction. If it did not meets anyones needs they would
not buy it. It is only because it does meet their needs that they part
with their money.
>
> >need that is then forced to address a general need.
>
> There has been no force and there could not be.
So people have freely chosen the path of commercialism.
>
> That is incorrect.
>
> I think we have enough real world examples now to show that this
> assumption of yours is flimsy at best, and outright wrong if the truth
> be known.
what real world examples ?, there are even more thoughout history to
show you are wrong.
>
> >without IP no company could do this.
>
> We do not need companies to do it AT ALL.
yes you do, it is only through mass marketing and useage that the price
becomes affordable.
>
> >Development would still happen but people and
> >organizations will only develop for themselves.
>
> Which is fine and as it should be.
In that case you would not even have linux as the microprocessor would
be a poor thing indeed.
>
> There are enough people with a few hours spare each day to supply
> hundreds of times the required man hours. For free.
Bollocks, why is it then that this has not happened, freeware/shareware
have been around for 20+years, the CD and DVD are a much bigger success
yet they are patented.
>
> They may be able to copy the blueprints (source code). But until we
> have 3d printers or nanotechnology, they will not be copying the
> products. The physical products.
well software is a products, music, video, books all these are easily
copied. As for the rest, that too can be copied much cheaper than it can
be developed.
>
> You will still have to buy them. Millions can be employed at this
> level - and are, now. The vast bulk.
Yes, but there will ne nothing new to buy. Who would spend hundreds of
million to make the lord of the rings trilogy when one person can easily
make a copy and give away for free.
>
> Except the products will be better and cheaper. Because every one's
> best ideas can be used.
No, as you said above
Quote
>>Development would still happen but people and
>>organizations will only develop for themselves.
>
>Which is fine and as it should be.
End quote.
So which is it, when people develop only for themselves "as it should
be" then products become one ofs rather than mass productions, that
makes them more expensive.
>
> >IP is necessary.
>
> It is not, and history shows this well.
yet you have given no realistic examples. yet most of the products in
your have have come from the line of commercial protection, patent and
copywright.
Peter B.
wrote the words:
>Peter B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 10:15:48 +1200, Hop Sc0tch
>> <posta...@localhost.net> obviously wrote the words:
>>
>>
>>>So, Ok..let go slowly. You invent 100 ideas, each costs 100 million to
>>>develop into a commercial product, that gives you a cost of 10 billion
>>>dollars. Only one product is a success, now, you have 10 billion to
>>>recover, so lets be generous and make that only 1/10 say 1 billion. You
>>>produce the article, however 6 weeks later a clone comes out, cheaper
>>>than you sell, after all they don't have the development costs, so your
>>>sales plumet. the development costs have not gone away, yet you have no
>>>sales to meet them.
>>>
>>
>> Reminds me of the first company I worked for. They got the patents
>> for a particular product - about five years in development, with some
>> 10,000 people involved, plus plant and production lines to set up, as
>> well as destruction testing and all the rest. Product was supposed to
>> give them about $4.00 profit per item (selling at around $50). After
>> they produced a few million, and just before getting the things to
>> the market (worldwide), a new process was invented, producing a
>> replacement product that SOLD at $0.45 (the process was that much more
>> cost effective), with a profit margin of about half a cent.
>>
>> Wonder why the company went belly up less than six months later?
>>
>In many cases a company such as the one you worked for would use their
>patent to delay or prevent the competitors product getting to market.
No. The two products, although equivalent, had different patents. It
just happened that the first (with my company) was on the market a
couple of months earlier. The fact is invention can be happening at
the same time.
>This is not fair competition or a free market, and allows companies with
> speculative principle patents to control innovation to the detriment
>of consumer choice.
it can happen, but usually with speculative principle patents it's
damned hard to prove that the patent was infringed upon - ideas are
NOT patentable nor copyrightable.
>The process of innovation is then subject to arbitration by the state at
>great cost, with benefits only to the lawyers, who attempt to get the
>judiciary to rule on highly technical judgement calls, usually
>completely arbitrarily against innovations.
True - but there has to be enough prima facie stuff to make the case
for infringement, including showing that there were assessable
damages.
>Drug patents are usually applied in ways that are detrimental to the
>health of millions.
I tend to agree with you in the case of drugs. However, if the patents
didn't exist, the results very likely would be also detrimental to the
health of millions.
Peter B.
obviously wrote the words:
......
>Unlike commercial enterprise, where only one need is met: profit. All
>other needs that are met are purely accidental.
What utter nonsense!
Profit is a byproduct of meeting needs in all commercial companies.
That byproduct is what funds further research, for the next ways of
meeting needs or for meeting new needs.
No wonder you often come across as what Redbaiter would call a
communist!
>
>The general needs are met because they are common and because people
>wish to meet them.
>This has been achived. It will be achived ever more profoundly.
And because people are willing to pay to have their needs met, which
means that there needs to be profit to handle the next generation of
product
>......
Hop Sc0tch
wrote:
> >
> In many cases a company such as the one you worked for would use their
> patent to delay or prevent the competitors product getting to market.
or they would use the patent to protect the work they have done so that
they can make a fair profit. Unlike simple labout which can be paid for
on a weekly basis, research and patents can take years to pay for via
profits.
> This is not fair competition or a free market, and allows companies with
> speculative principle patents to control innovation to the detriment
> of consumer choice.
Patents are not just given willy nilly, they are more clearly defined
than that.
> The process of innovation is then subject to arbitration by the state at
> great cost, with benefits only to the lawyers, who attempt to get the
> judiciary to rule on highly technical judgement calls, usually
> completely arbitrarily against innovations.
No, patents protect the people who do inovate gainst those who would
simply just scrounge and do no inovation themselves.
> Drug patents are usually applied in ways that are detrimental to the
> health of millions.
The lack of patents would be more harmful, there would be no
encouragement to do years of research and spend handreds of million of
dollars when you know someone can simply copy the result without the
work.
It would be like a student who does nothing at school is given the right
to copy someone elses exams and get a good pass at school, they then use
that pass to get a job making someone else whose "results" are not as
good miss out.
That is unfair competition.
mr-p
> No wonder you often come across as what Redbaiter would call a
> communist!
>
That would be everyone that doesn't think the sun shines out of his
profuse arse.
mr-p
One example in the case of automated stage lighting a few years ago,
Varilites were able to stall the rest of the companies in the
marketplace for several years and defend their high priced rental
business against many competitors who invested heavily in manufacturing
knowing there was a huge sales market, yet unable to service it even
though Varilites had no interest in it.
Patent law is certainly a very mixed blessing.
Hop Sc0tch
wrote:
> One example in the case of automated stage lighting a few years ago,
> Varilites were able to stall the rest of the companies in the
> marketplace for several years and defend their high priced rental
> business against many competitors who invested heavily in manufacturing
> knowing there was a huge sales market, yet unable to service it even
> though Varilites had no interest in it.
>
> Patent law is certainly a very mixed blessing.
>
Funny, I had a friend who designed and built stage lighting control
units.
The eventually sold out to stagelighting.
mr-p
Nothing at all to do with varilite
http://www.vari-lite.com/
shdel
"Peter B." <pe...@formula3-5.com> wrote in message
news:3d5dbf31...@news.xtra.co.nz...
The RIAA did not develop: the net,mp3 or even p2p.Yet they wish to cash in
on it.
Where did their profits go?If they had developed their own software,codecs
that would be something.But going out & prosecuting & taking over p2p
developers & using a *stolen* codec under the guise that *you are stealing
from us?* is something else.Why don't they use liquid audio or Windows Media
which are better than MP3?Because they cost money to use?
They want everything for nothing.
Peter B.
obviously wrote the words:
>The RIAA did not develop: the net,mp3 or even p2p.Yet they wish to cash in
>on it.
effectively, they are content providers for these. it's the content
that's suposedly the intellectual property, not the delivery
mechanism.
>Where did their profits go?If they had developed their own software,codecs
>that would be something.But going out & prosecuting & taking over p2p
>developers & using a *stolen* codec under the guise that *you are stealing
>from us?* is something else.Why don't they use liquid audio or Windows Media
>which are better than MP3?Because they cost money to use?
Note that you are concentrating on the delivery mechanisms, not the
content being delivered.
>They want everything for nothing.
Surprisingly, I agree with you. They do want something for nothing.
Their excuse is that they want to collect royalties for the copyright
owners, and SAY that these are the artists, although I'm doubtful
about the claim. They keep a portion (not sure what this is) for the
administration of such collection, which sounds like being a fair
return for the effort.
Peter B.
Religion is something that only secondarily can be taught. It must primarily be caught.
mr-p
>
>
> Surprisingly, I agree with you. They do want something for nothing.
>
> Their excuse is that they want to collect royalties for the copyright
> owners, and SAY that these are the artists, although I'm doubtful
> about the claim. They keep a portion (not sure what this is) for the
> administration of such collection, which sounds like being a fair
> return for the effort.
If you are interested here are a few links which explain the process
from several points of view
http://www.ascap.com/musicbiz/money-intro.html
http://www.dnalounge.com/backstage/webcasting.html
http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
bt
Are you no longer able to argue under your real name and cower in
fear, or are you another person ?
>> Development only costs 'hundreds of millions' of dollars now because
>> it is increasingly untenable to find alternative methods or
>> implementations to avoid breaching someone elses overly broad patent.
>
>No, take the CD for instance, that was a new development that took a hell
>of a lot of money to develop into a commercial product.
All of which has been recovered a hundred times over - yet the prices
are still high.
>> By removing patents from the equation, we reduce the development costs
>> buy a factor of ten at least.
>
>Your evidence for this is what (no hope and a prayer answers)
It is (as you repeatedly say) 'self evident'.
>> By selling the resulting fitter product, the development costs are
>> recovered much as now. The consumer benefits from superior products at
>> a better price; the industry benefits from the increased competition
>> and innovation.
>
>So, what you are asying that that a new drug therapy that cost about
>1BILLION to develop will no only cost 100 MILLION,
Perhaps even less.
>and that enough sales
>can be made in the first few months to cover the 100 million before all
>the non-research places simply clone the drug ?
Possibly; although I think it'd be more likly the market would reduce
the prices down to what the market would stand - in true capitalistic
competitive style. That being a figure some small amount above cost.
>> A few rich people have to get out and actually work, rather than dream
>> up onerous licensing demands (like Microsoft do).
>
>Ahh...so this is actually an anti-microsoft rant.
In a debate, a weak opponent will often cease on any chance to
introduce emotive invective or inflammatory populism as you have just
done.
>> And finally, a great body of knowledge was actually paid for by the
>> tax payer, in the form of research grants from governments all around
>> the world. Products from these should be priced at cost plus a small
>> profit incentive; development cost recovery is already paid for. And
>> yet we do not see this; the taxpayer gets to pay TWICE.
>
>Actually, in NZ the majority of research is paid for by private
>companies,
And here you try to move the goal posts. Another gambit from a weak
debator.
>the government is rapidly becomming a minor player. Also
>research personel who are any good are also being attracted to private
>companies away from government jobs because the pay and working
>conditions are better. It should be noted though that a LOT of NZs
>overseas earning come from patents held within the primary produce ares,
>that could all be removed overnight which would lead to massive job cuts.
Such jobs would be replaced as primary research become the focus of
industry rather than IP law and the leveraging or avoiding of patents.
>> >> Additionally, freed from the self-destructive straight jacket of IP
>> >> law, poor and rich nations alike would benefit to the individual
>> >> health of each citizen; medical costs would plummet.
>> >
>> >as would quality.
>>
>> PROVE IT.
>
>Cost of new medicine to develop is over 1 BILLION dollars,
So you assert. Prove It. Peer reviewed please.
>only 1 drug
>in 100 makes it to the shelves, that is a LOT of money to recover.
So: your virtuous industry spends 100 Billion dollars developing
drugs, 99% of which are unusable.
It sounds like the system does NOT work at all. It sounds like it has
more money than it knows what to do with, and a success rate of 1% is
unacceptible.
Time for a new paradigm.
>With no incentive to develop new drugs (ie costs high, risks high, return sod
>all as it can be copied at nil return) then development will stop.
That is an unlikly conclusion. Two alternatives I offer you:
1. Drugs would be developed in Universities and hospitals, with tax
payer money and at no profit. Drug factories could tender for the
contracts to manufactor them.
2. Extending the current efforts in peer to peer distributed computing
(various protein folding projects for example) into a wider effort,
small or large researchers could harness the power of millions of
years of spare computing time to model new drugs. And they could do it
for free, as they do now, massivly reducing the cost of development.
Either or both of these could b done in a GPL like fashion, and would
work best this way; both systems would and could be run in parallel.
>That is self evident.
What is self evident is that you are unable to innovate.
[reams of bald assertions of doom gratefully deleted]
>> Gigabytes of software, that is used by millions of people every day.
>> And the number is growing.
>
>examples.
www.sourceforge.net contains many projects, some finished, some not,
some popular (cdex), some not. It is one of thousands of examples.
The rest you will need to find yourself, as I suspect you are
employing yet another weak-debator tactic: wearying the opponent with
endless calls for evidence you have no intention of reading.
>> >Sorry, linux does not count
>> >as otjer commercial systems are easier to use for the majority of
>> >people, easier to maintain for the same group of people.
>>
>> Linux DOES count because it IS worth while; and being worth while is
>> Good Enough. Being used by the 'majority of people' is a poor second
>> as far as justifications go. And do no think your shifting of goal
>> posts escaped my notice. You getting desperate ?
>
>but wait a minute, aren't you the one who says if someone can produce
>something beter then the first person who does not keep up will go
>broke, surely then the majority of people have spoken and choose to pay
>for what they believe is a superior product.
Another weak debator tactic: link logically unrelated assertions
togeather, and draw an unrelated conclusion. Done well, it looks like
a good, logical argument and would fool many. Politicians and Cult
leaders use it often.
1. No, I do not say that.
2. People's choice of operating system has been found to be denied by
the actions of a convicted monopoly - so they have not 'chosen' at
all.
>> 2. Linux IS easy to use, and getting easier all the time. Infact, in
>> the last 3 years Linux has caught up to Windows in most ways - it took
>> Microsoft 20+ years to reach this point and Linux perhaps 5. At this
>> rate, Linux will surpass Windows in every fashsion in the next few
>> years.
>
>no, linux is still much harder to use for the majority of people, jst
>because you may feel that it is not an issue is neither here nor there.
And just because YOU feel it IS too hard is ALSO neither here not
there.
The majority of people find Windows 'too hard' also. I am paid money
by such people, so *I* would know.
>I remember when all the PC weenies who candemed the Mac as real people
>used command lines are now using what...GUI's too. It is ONLY because so
>much of the paradigms behind the GUI have been developed commerciall
>that linux has been able to catch up, there was no development work
>needed.
Another set of poorly connected conclusions.
1. What does GUI's have to do with the topic ? Linux has multiple
GUI's a user may select from, and multiple command shells.
2. The concept of the GUI came from a pure research basis, and was
judged as not commercially viable. All the 'paradigms' were created
then; what has followed has been embellishment.
3. Your vaunted paragons of commerce had to 'catch up' with Mosaic and
the World Wide Web: a concept born out of the free exchange of indeas
and code now recognised as Open Source. A concept now worth trillions
of dollars a year - and all from a paradigm YOU dismiss as unworkable.
>> 3. Linux IS easier to maintain, as it needs less maintenance than
>> Windows (it's main commercial competitor).
>
>well I have a laptop at work that has run everyday for 3 years with
>nothing more than a defrag.
As unbeliveable as that is, it is also irrelevant. This debate does
not rely on the specifics of your laptop.
>> 4. Linux is not the only example of Open Source or Free Software or
>> GPL software. Others abound and are responsible for the greatest
>> repository of knowledge and progress ever conceived by humanity: the
>> Internet. It was NOT the work of Patents or Copyright or Commerce:
>> they were simply incapable of it. And this is VERY telling of the
>> flaws of the commerce-centric ideology you have.
>
>Actually the hardware behind the internet is patented and it started by
>running on patented software.
That is incorrect and irrelevant.
If you wish to convince anyone you will need to supply some pretty
solid evidence for this claim.
>not only that when it first came out here in NZ it was because NASA met the costs,
So, your argument is that because NASA paid for our link to the US, or
because some modems had proprietry code in their ROM, the Internet is
somehow the product of commerce ?
Laughable.
>you only have it because someone saw financila and commercial gain,
Nope.
I actually had it at first because a few hobbyists in Christchurch ran
a BBS called Equinox. Just For Fun.
Others up north used the link of the Internet Home Users Group (now
known as IHUG, but originally a User's Group or club type affair) or a
BBS.
Much later, commercial interests saw the hard work had been done and
bullied everyone else out. And then claimed they invented the whole
idea.
>they have a limited supply product that you can not duplicate, copy, give away, pirate or otherwise.
Of course you can.
And quite cheaply now too: Wireless LAN's and connection shareing has
seen to that. And long may it continue.
>If you could do these things then they would not have invested the billion of dollars.
What a load of crap: the infalliability of commercial interests has
recently been shown for the utter bunk it always was. Enron, Worldcom,
BCCI, and countless others put paid to the idea commerce is somehow
all knowing and benevolent.
They invested billions of dollars not because patents protected the
investment: they did NOT have patents.
They did it because they saw money in it. Monthly fees. For providing
a service (product).
Patents were not in the equation and never were.
Laughable.
>> >It also ignores tha none of the opensource people are doing it as the
>> >sole source of income,
>>
>> No one said that it HAD to be the sole source of income, and I refuse
>> to see why it should be assumed so.
>
>because the real guts behind software comes from professional
>programmers
It does not.
'professional programmers' write uninspiring shit like databases and
point of sales systems for the local Council or Video Rental shop.
They all, almost to a man, HATE it. They wish they could do something
INTERESTING. Like the hobbyists do.
And how do I know ?
I know a few of them; and all I have read of others tells me they were
not unusual.
The 'real guts' comes from small groups or individuals who came up
with a novel idea, or from the students at universities.
>whos income is derived from commercial software,
That's the only reason for doing such drudgery.
>amateurs generate very little towards this fundamental core,
And what the hell would you know ?
>they simply do not have the knowledge,
How do you know ?
>experiance and skills.
Plenty of them are actually more skilled than your 'professional'
programmers.
>Without this core there is nothing else.
If you are going to make things up, atleast try to make it
believeable.
>> That is only ONE of your mistakes.
>
>no it is one of your fundamental ones, you fail to see that once
>knowldge becomes free it has no value to anyone else and people will not
>pay for something that can be gained for free, therefore the people who
>create that knowledge will not be there because they can earn nothing
>from it.
That is a great argument against the human race ever coming down out
of the trees.
History (and evolution) profoundly disprove your parochial assertion.
>> Or they work at the local supermarket, university or garage.
>
>In the main no they don't, the can not gain the knowledge, experiance
>from those jobs to do the hard tasks. that requires professionals.
And what exactly is a Professional Programmer ?
Someone who gets paid for it assumedly. Which proves nothing except a
minimal ability.
Brendan (Avatar)
--
齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,�Join Electronic Frontiers New Zealand - ensure the future liberty of cyberspace in NZ. http://www.efnz.org.nz
bt
wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 12:54:25 +1200, bt <b...@memelabs.com.invalid>
>obviously wrote the words:
>......
>>Unlike commercial enterprise, where only one need is met: profit. All
>>other needs that are met are purely accidental.
>
>What utter nonsense!
So you say. Every time. With nauseating predictability.
It's like you have no original thoughts.
>Profit is a byproduct of meeting needs in all commercial companies.
Nope.
Profit is the primary result of exploiting a market. Such exploitation
is most effective with a monopoly position in that market.
Commerce 101.
>That byproduct is what funds further research, for the next ways of
>meeting needs or for meeting new needs.
That's the theory, yes, not the fact all too often.
>No wonder you often come across as what Redbaiter would call a
>communist!
Redbaiter is an abusive malcontent heading for a mental breakdown. His
status as the newsgroup's class clown is well earned and derserved.
For those reasons, I am happy to be on his shit list: nothing could be
a greater endorsement of the correctness of my views.
I have repeatedly stated I am not a communist. The only people
claiming I am a communist are those I am defeating in debate. I am,
apparently, more right-leaning that David Farrar, who works for the
National Party.
Claims I am communist are the work of a weak mind losing his debate.
>>The general needs are met because they are common and because people
>>wish to meet them.
>>This has been achived. It will be achived ever more profoundly.
>
>And because people are willing to pay to have their needs met, which
>means that there needs to be profit to handle the next generation of
>product
This is the mode of operation of a virus. Not intelligent beings.
Your attempt to simplify the situation to such an extent illustrates
beyond doubt that you do not understand it, nor the arguments at hand.
bt
<posta...@localhost.net> wrote:
>> The system is so good an example of How to Do Things Right that most
>> universities use it as a core resource for teaching computer science.
>
>so you have personal knowledge that "most universities" claim yo9u have
>made
Yup. And you do to: search for it with google.
>> So: You are totally wrong. As per usual.
>
>Where is your eveidence ?
Where's yours ?
I've done all the evidence providing I wish to for one day. You're
turn. I'm not carrying you.
>> The entire Internet is ad-hoc; ad-hoc succeeded where your commercial
>> interests failed. Repeatedly. And still do.
>
>No commercialisation of the internet is why you have access.
Ahh: back to the non-sequiter I see.
1. We were talking about the construction of the Internet, especially
in it's early stages. This was not accomplished by commerce, and
indeed the main infrastructure of it (the software) is still not
commercial. The main traffic of it is not commercial either. The
profits in it are not profitable in the main.
2. Most of the intial public access was through non-profit BBSes and
Universities and Polytechnics and some Libraries or staff access at
some companies (for free). Commercial access businesses came much
later.
>> It addresses a wide range of needs; indeed, hundreds of thousands or
>> millions. Each contributor had his only need, and contributed to
>> fulfil that. There have been hundreds of thousands of such
>> contributors. Hence, hundreds of thousands of needs are met.
>
>Or, because it is so poorly degined it does not meet the needs of people
>and must be worked at.
That is the definition of ALL software.
With GPL software however, the features are implemented rapidly.
>> Unlike commercial enterprise, where only one need is met: profit. All
>> other needs that are met are purely accidental.
>
>That is a contradiction. If it did not meets anyones needs they would
>not buy it. It is only because it does meet their needs that they part
>with their money.
This is the ideology.
The practice however is a practice of excluding competition and
entrenching a monopoly to deny choice. This is far more effective than
proper competition and most amply achived with patents and copyrights.
People do not have th choice of buying it: it is installed on the
computer already, and charged for. For a novice, computers are not
available in any other fashion.
Manufactorers are punished for supplying them without an OS, namely a
Microsoft OS. The latest victim of this obvious monopolisation was
Dell. It should still be on the news sites.
Open your eyes.
>> >need that is then forced to address a general need.
>>
>> There has been no force and there could not be.
>
>So people have freely chosen the path of commercialism.
They have not.
No matter how you TRY to trick people into believing the opposite with
your double-speak, the facts are there fore anyone to see.
That you do not is purely because you are incapable of it.
>> That is incorrect.
>>
>> I think we have enough real world examples now to show that this
>> assumption of yours is flimsy at best, and outright wrong if the truth
>> be known.
>
>what real world examples ?, there are even more thoughout history to
>show you are wrong.
The present them here.
>> >without IP no company could do this.
>>
>> We do not need companies to do it AT ALL.
>
>yes you do, it is only through mass marketing and useage that the price
>becomes affordable.
Marketing adds to the price.
I am coming to the conclusion you have no clue.
And their are alternative production and economic methods that reduce
price even better.
>> Which is fine and as it should be.
>
>In that case you would not even have linux as the microprocessor would
>be a poor thing indeed.
The micro circut was developed as part of a taxpayer funded project.
>> There are enough people with a few hours spare each day to supply
>> hundreds of times the required man hours. For free.
>
>Bollocks,
It's true.
>why is it then that this has not happened,
It is.
>freeware/shareware have been around for 20+years,
Longer than that. It is infact the normal state of software;
commercialisation is the abberation.
>the CD and DVD are a much bigger success yet they are patented.
They have a wider appeal. It proves nothing as to merits of the
opposing paradigms.
Patents do not make a product popular. Amusing you would argue that
they do...
>> They may be able to copy the blueprints (source code). But until we
>> have 3d printers or nanotechnology, they will not be copying the
>> products. The physical products.
>
>well software is a products, music, video, books all these are easily
>copied.
And the copyright on them is all but impossible to enforce. And should
be abolished
>As for the rest, that too can be copied much cheaper than it can
>be developed.
And it can be developed much cheaper than it is now.
>> You will still have to buy them. Millions can be employed at this
>> level - and are, now. The vast bulk.
>
>Yes, but there will ne nothing new to buy.
PROVE IT.
>Who would spend hundreds of
>million to make the lord of the rings trilogy
No one would need to.
>when one person can easily make a copy and give away for free.
It's a fine distribution system, true: and free.
>> Except the products will be better and cheaper. Because every one's
>> best ideas can be used.
>
>No, as you said above
>Quote
>>>Development would still happen but people and
>>>organizations will only develop for themselves.
>>
>>Which is fine and as it should be.
>End quote.
>
>So which is it, when people develop only for themselves "as it should
>be" then products become one ofs rather than mass productions, that
>makes them more expensive.
One of the lessons that the GPL teaches us is that most of the time,
we have the same needs. So the 'selfish' work of one person can
benefit many.
Is this too difficult for you to grasp ?
>> >IP is necessary.
>>
>> It is not, and history shows this well.
>
>yet you have given no realistic examples.
I have.
And you have given NO counter examples - realistic or otherwise. At
all.
I am doing the work here; I am carrying you.
>yet most of the products in
>your have have come from the line of commercial protection, patent and
>copywright.
No. That is YOUR unsubstantiated assertion and weakly argued opinion
stated as fact.
bt
wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 02:32:21 +1200, bt <b...@memelabs.com.invalid>
>obviously wrote the words:
>
>>No again. I repair computers; I often give away free advice in this
>>very news group.
>>
>What's the old adage about the value of free advice?
I hardly care.
If you are reduced to old wives tales to support your argument.. You
do not have an argument.
>Then there's Piet Hein's GrooK:
>Shun advice
>At any price
>That's what I call
>Good Advice.
Don't give up your day job.
Peter B.
commented:
>On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 03:21:40 GMT, pe...@formula3-5.com (Peter B.)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 12:54:25 +1200, bt <b...@memelabs.com.invalid>
>>obviously wrote the words:
>>......
>>>Unlike commercial enterprise, where only one need is met: profit. All
>>>other needs that are met are purely accidental.
>>
>>What utter nonsense!
>
>So you say. Every time. With nauseating predictability.
>It's like you have no original thoughts.
Actually, I usually state that I disagree, which is generally not
predicatable. And I generally examine contrary opinions to find why I
disagree with them.
>
>>Profit is a byproduct of meeting needs in all commercial companies.
>
>Nope.
>Profit is the primary result of exploiting a market. Such exploitation
>is most effective with a monopoly position in that market.
>Commerce 101.
Academic nonsense, then, If this were true, Commerce 301 would not
contradict it.
>
>>That byproduct is what funds further research, for the next ways of
>>meeting needs or for meeting new needs.
>
>That's the theory, yes, not the fact all too often.
>
Only for those who don't look at the facts.
>>No wonder you often come across as what Redbaiter would call a
>>communist!
>
>Redbaiter is an abusive malcontent heading for a mental breakdown. His
>status as the newsgroup's class clown is well earned and derserved.
>For those reasons, I am happy to be on his shit list: nothing could be
>a greater endorsement of the correctness of my views.
>
>I have repeatedly stated I am not a communist. The only people
>claiming I am a communist are those I am defeating in debate. I am,
>apparently, more right-leaning that David Farrar, who works for the
>National Party.
I did not state that you were - only that you come across that way.
There is a difference.
>Claims I am communist are the work of a weak mind losing his debate.
What debate?
>>>The general needs are met because they are common and because people
>>>wish to meet them.
>>>This has been achived. It will be achived ever more profoundly.
>>
>>And because people are willing to pay to have their needs met, which
>>means that there needs to be profit to handle the next generation of
>>product
>
>This is the mode of operation of a virus. Not intelligent beings.
Actually, intelligent behaviour is very reminiscent of how viruses
act; they adapt to the environment, as well as adapt the environment
to themselves.
>Your attempt to simplify the situation to such an extent illustrates
>beyond doubt that you do not understand it, nor the arguments at hand.
And you attempt to change the argument to suit your level of
knowledge, without understanding the concepts.
Now, are we finished with the insults?
Peter B.
commented:
>On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 23:11:17 GMT, pe...@formula3-5.com (Peter B.)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 02:32:21 +1200, bt <b...@memelabs.com.invalid>
>>obviously wrote the words:
>>
>>>No again. I repair computers; I often give away free advice in this
>>>very news group.
>>>
>>What's the old adage about the value of free advice?
>
>I hardly care.
Obvious.
>
>If you are reduced to old wives tales to support your argument.. You
>do not have an argument.
It was an observation, and obviously valid, since that was all you
could come up with.
>
>>Then there's Piet Hein's GrooK:
>>Shun advice
>>At any price
>>That's what I call
>>Good Advice.
>
>Don't give up your day job.
T'was a quotation about advice, which you are so full of, which is why
the snip to just what it was referring to.
Ligthen up - there's more to life than newsgroups.
Hop Sc0tch
bt <b...@memelabs.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >Where is your eveidence ?
>
> Where's yours ?
>
> I've done all the evidence providing I wish to for one day. You're
> turn. I'm not carrying you.
but you have presented no evidence.
> 1. We were talking about the construction of the Internet, especially
> in it's early stages. This was not accomplished by commerce, and
> indeed the main infrastructure of it (the software) is still not
> commercial. The main traffic of it is not commercial either. The
> profits in it are not profitable in the main.
Actually it is a development of arpanet which was set up by the american
military.
>
> 2. Most of the intial public access was through non-profit BBSes and
> Universities and Polytechnics and some Libraries or staff access at
> some companies (for free). Commercial access businesses came much
> later.
They could only supply it for free because someone else was paying.
> With GPL software however, the features are implemented rapidly.
Then why after 20 odd years is GPL not superior in all ways to
commercial software ? The pieces I have tried (electrical engineering)
are buggy and have a crap interface.
> >That is a contradiction. If it did not meets anyones needs they would
> >not buy it. It is only because it does meet their needs that they part
> >with their money.
>
> This is the ideology.
Well its your ideology.
>
> The practice however is a practice of excluding competition and
> entrenching a monopoly to deny choice. This is far more effective than
> proper competition and most amply achived with patents and copyrights.
Oh, what lack of competion, microsoft is not the only company who
supplys operating systems, applications, or peripherals. Nor do they
dominate the net.
>
> People do not have th choice of buying it: it is installed on the
> computer already, and charged for. For a novice, computers are not
> available in any other fashion.
Actually you do have a choice, and people do make it. Novices like
professionals seek the best and cheapest solution.
>
> Manufactorers are punished for supplying them without an OS, namely a
> Microsoft OS. The latest victim of this obvious monopolisation was
> Dell. It should still be on the news sites.
Well I own a Mac so I am hardly being punished.
>
> Open your eyes.
I do, and they see the reality no the paranoid view you obviously see.
>
> No matter how you TRY to trick people into believing the opposite with
> your double-speak, the facts are there fore anyone to see.
true, and the fact is that because you do not agree with them you
dismiss them.
>
> That you do not is purely because you are incapable of it.
pot..Kettle..black.
> >what real world examples ?, there are even more thoughout history to
> >show you are wrong.
>
> The present them here.
Well that was if not concise, it was poor english and had no worthwhile
content...and that it your evidence ?
>
> Marketing adds to the price.
>
> I am coming to the conclusion you have no clue.
bit about the pots again. but if you want to look back through history
you will see that on average everyone has a much higher standard of
living today than they did 100 years ago, and even more so than 200
years ago, etc.
>
> And their are alternative production and economic methods that reduce
> price even better.
yet they still have done nothing to alter the world. It funny how on one
hand you claim the avarice of comapnies and how they want to maximise
profits, yet the do not seem to take advantage of all these well know
methods.
>
> >> Which is fine and as it should be.
> >
> >In that case you would not even have linux as the microprocessor would
> >be a poor thing indeed.
>
> The micro circut was developed as part of a taxpayer funded project.
No, it was developed for a tax funded project by a private company.
>
> >> There are enough people with a few hours spare each day to supply
> >> hundreds of times the required man hours. For free.
> >
> >Bollocks,
>
> It's true.
>
> >why is it then that this has not happened,
>
> It is.
>
> >freeware/shareware have been around for 20+years,
>
> Longer than that. It is infact the normal state of software;
> commercialisation is the abberation.
then it should dominate, where as it does not.
>
> >the CD and DVD are a much bigger success yet they are patented.
>
> They have a wider appeal. It proves nothing as to merits of the
> opposing paradigms.
>
> Patents do not make a product popular. Amusing you would argue that
> they do...
Actually, it is because they are patented that the companies who spend
hundreds of millions developing the whole thing have been able to
release it as a commercial product.Blank CDs also have benefitted, they
used to be more than $30 each but are now less than $1. How could this
be when patents stiffle competition, because it is NOT Sony or Philips
who are the main players in the cd market anymore.
> And the copyright on them is all but impossible to enforce. And should
> be abolished
murder, rape, theft, drug abuse, fraud are all impossible to prevent
too. If you abolish copywright you will abolish the arts too as no0 one
will be able to make a living from it. Some books have taken the authors
years of research and during this time they eat, sleep, clothe
themselves, yet you want to take away their income so the 2nd book will
never be written.
>
> >As for the rest, that too can be copied much cheaper than it can
> >be developed.
>
> And it can be developed much cheaper than it is now.
yet it can be copied still cheaper again. Development always costs more
than a cheap copy.
>
> >> You will still have to buy them. Millions can be employed at this
> >> level - and are, now. The vast bulk.
> >
> >Yes, but there will ne nothing new to buy.
>
> PROVE IT.
self evident. No profits from new discovery will equal no money to
invest in future products.
>
> >Who would spend hundreds of
> >million to make the lord of the rings trilogy
>
> No one would need to.
So all the people who worked on LOTR will do it for free ?, all the
props, sets, food, clothign will all be for free ? OR, are you saying
that no one would need to make the films because they would never meet
the costs in making them.
>
> >when one person can easily make a copy and give away for free.
>
> It's a fine distribution system, true: and free.
not free, the cables etc did not appear from nowhere, they had to be
paid for.
> One of the lessons that the GPL teaches us is that most of the time,
> we have the same needs. So the 'selfish' work of one person can
> benefit many.
>
> Is this too difficult for you to grasp ?
Yes but what do all these people do to feed themselves ? The core of
Linux was not written by a plumber, it was written by a professional
programmer who was also in paid employment.
> I have.
>
> And you have given NO counter examples - realistic or otherwise. At
> all.
ypu have given no examples.
But try, TV, Videa, CDs, DVDs, Computers, microwaves, cars, lasers, etc
as examples where the products ARE patented and have thrived and have
not stopped competition.
>
> I am doing the work here; I am carrying you.
no, you are imagining it all, you have shown nothing yet.
>
> >yet most of the products in
> >your have have come from the line of commercial protection, patent and
> >copywright.
>
> No. That is YOUR unsubstantiated assertion and weakly argued opinion
> stated as fact.
no, the microprocessors are copyrighted, as is DVDs, CDs,books, etc. As
is the film industry, photographic industry, music industry etc and
these have never been so vibrant as they are today. And in each of these
areas there is competion.
>
>
> Brendan (Avatar)
Hop Sc0tch
bt <b...@memelabs.com.invalid> wrote:
> >No, take the CD for instance, that was a new development that took a hell
> >of a lot of money to develop into a commercial product.
>
> All of which has been recovered a hundred times over - yet the prices
> are still high.
well i call the cost of CDRs dropping from $30 to less than $1 not an a
high cost.
> >So, what you are asying that that a new drug therapy that cost about
> >1BILLION to develop will no only cost 100 MILLION,
>
> Perhaps even less.
perhaps...where is the evidence of this apart from wishfull thinking ?
>
> >and that enough sales
> >can be made in the first few months to cover the 100 million before all
> >the non-research places simply clone the drug ?
>
> Possibly; although I think it'd be more likly the market would reduce
> the prices down to what the market would stand - in true capitalistic
> competitive style. That being a figure some small amount above cost.
Cost to develop 1 billion, cost to clone 1 million (if that), the
company who clones the drug will therefore be more profitable than the
company who develops the drug, either tha or there is so much
competition from other companies that the developing company never gets
to recover their development costs and goes broke.
> >Ahh...so this is actually an anti-microsoft rant.
>
> In a debate, a weak opponent will often cease on any chance to
> introduce emotive invective or inflammatory populism as you have just
> done.
however microsoft does have competiotn.
> >Actually, in NZ the majority of research is paid for by private
> >companies,
>
> And here you try to move the goal posts. Another gambit from a weak
> debator.
huh, you were saying how the tax payer paid for the research, i simply
stated that the majority of research is done by private companies, no
shifting of any goal post, just a simple refution of what you tried to
claim.
> Such jobs would be replaced as primary research become the focus of
> industry rather than IP law and the leveraging or avoiding of patents.
how, these people must be paid, therefore research costs money. the time
and cost to develop something new and inovative will always be higher
then the cost of simply copying a product. Therefore it is self evident
that there is a huge disincentive to do research because any gains you
make are available at no cost to everyone else, therefore your costs are
much higher and yet your ability to pay for that research has been
destroyed.
> >Cost of new medicine to develop is over 1 BILLION dollars,
>
> So you assert. Prove It. Peer reviewed please.
>
> >only 1 drug
> >in 100 makes it to the shelves, that is a LOT of money to recover.
>
> So: your virtuous industry spends 100 Billion dollars developing
> drugs, 99% of which are unusable.
>
> It sounds like the system does NOT work at all. It sounds like it has
> more money than it knows what to do with, and a success rate of 1% is
> unacceptible.
You seem to lack some fundamental knowledge as to how complex the human
body and its biological systems are. even simple molecules like alcohol
do more than get you drunk, and those effects are also dependant on the
individual person and a lot of other things in their life. there is also
the problem of drug interactions that must be sorted, it is no point
taking say an antibiotic which by itself is OK, and a pain killer which
by itsself are OK, but when mixed can give you a brain hemorage.
>
> Time for a new paradigm.
no time for you to lear how complex the problem is.
> 1. Drugs would be developed in Universities and hospitals, with tax
> payer money and at no profit. Drug factories could tender for the
> contracts to manufactor them.
they do already, however simply because the money is taken from the tax
payer does not mean no one is meeting the costs. Why should they tender
for the right, they are in your world free to copy it at no charge.
>
> 2. Extending the current efforts in peer to peer distributed computing
> (various protein folding projects for example) into a wider effort,
> small or large researchers could harness the power of millions of
> years of spare computing time to model new drugs. And they could do it
> for free, as they do now, massivly reducing the cost of development.
No, it is not free, you are simply donating now rather than at the end.
The computer is not free, the net is not free and the computer is only
part of the issue.
>
> Either or both of these could b done in a GPL like fashion, and would
> work best this way; both systems would and could be run in parallel.
Still need the money. the people don't work for free. Not only that then
there is all the trials, will a drug be usefull during what part of a
womans menstral cycle, their hormones change as they do with age, then
there are racial issues, enviromental issues, none of these can be
simulated.
>
> >That is self evident.
>
> What is self evident is that you are unable to innovate.
no, inovation IS happening and it happening at an accelerating rate all
around the world.
> www.sourceforge.net contains many projects, some finished, some not,
> some popular (cdex), some not. It is one of thousands of examples.
What, lots of effort going into useless products...say, just how many
useful and successful bits of software are there compared to how many
are written and are never used because something better comes
along...sounds like the same issue that drug companies face.
>
> The rest you will need to find yourself, as I suspect you are
> employing yet another weak-debator tactic: wearying the opponent with
> endless calls for evidence you have no intention of reading.
But the evidence is only worthwhile to your eyes, not to anyone esles.
> Another weak debator tactic: link logically unrelated assertions
> togeather, and draw an unrelated conclusion. Done well, it looks like
> a good, logical argument and would fool many. Politicians and Cult
> leaders use it often.
not unrelated at all.
>
> 2. People's choice of operating system has been found to be denied by
> the actions of a convicted monopoly - so they have not 'chosen' at
> all.
the linux in all its variation would not exist, neither would apple, or
BSD etc.
> >no, linux is still much harder to use for the majority of people, jst
> >because you may feel that it is not an issue is neither here nor there.
>
> And just because YOU feel it IS too hard is ALSO neither here not
> there.
Well i have 90% of the population on my side, the fact is i use a hep of
different OS's, I collect old computers, so I use CPM, CPM+, TRS-DOS,
NewDOS-80, MS-DOS, Pro-DOS, I am learning more about RSX-11, etc.
>
> The majority of people find Windows 'too hard' also. I am paid money
> by such people, so *I* would know.
I too am paid money to do consulting work as well as
electrical/electronics development work so I understand the costs
involved, the time involved and so on.
>
> >I remember when all the PC weenies who candemed the Mac as real people
> >used command lines are now using what...GUI's too. It is ONLY because so
> >much of the paradigms behind the GUI have been developed commerciall
> >that linux has been able to catch up, there was no development work
> >needed.
>
> Another set of poorly connected conclusions.
no actaully its very good one.
>
> 1. What does GUI's have to do with the topic ? Linux has multiple
> GUI's a user may select from, and multiple command shells.
because all the work involving the diferent interaction were worked out
by others, linux got that work without paying for it. it is NOT as
simple as you may think, it is ONLY because commercial products
developed it and refined it that all that work did not have to be done
by the linux community.
>
> 2. The concept of the GUI came from a pure research basis, and was
> judged as not commercially viable. All the 'paradigms' were created
> then; what has followed has been embellishment.
No. the Xerox research facility at Palo Alto was entirely commercial,
they ahd to pay for it out of profits from other areas. There efforts
compared to todays GUIs was crude by any standards.
>
> 3. Your vaunted paragons of commerce had to 'catch up' with Mosaic and
> the World Wide Web: a concept born out of the free exchange of indeas
> and code now recognised as Open Source. A concept now worth trillions
> of dollars a year - and all from a paradigm YOU dismiss as unworkable.
Again, mosaic was crude...where is it now ? i was using the net when
Telnet and then Gopher was the only way.
>
> >> 3. Linux IS easier to maintain, as it needs less maintenance than
> >> Windows (it's main commercial competitor).
> >
> >well I have a laptop at work that has run everyday for 3 years with
> >nothing more than a defrag.
>
> As unbeliveable as that is, it is also irrelevant. This debate does
> not rely on the specifics of your laptop.
no it relies only my experiance with a whole range of hardware and
software. My experiance tells me that the Mac is easier than both.
> >Actually the hardware behind the internet is patented and it started by
> >running on patented software.
>
> That is incorrect and irrelevant.
it is correct and totally relevant. Fibre optics is patented, and this
forms the backbone of the net. Firmware used in routers, frame relays,
etc is all copyright too.
>
> If you wish to convince anyone you will need to supply some pretty
> solid evidence for this claim.
Done.
> So, your argument is that because NASA paid for our link to the US, or
> because some modems had proprietry code in their ROM, the Internet is
> somehow the product of commerce ?
>
> Laughable.
no the explosion of users, the resulting need for and supply of
increased bandwidth and the need to share these costs across a larger
user base was what drove the net, as well as the commercialisation of it.
>
> >you only have it because someone saw financila and commercial gain,
>
> Nope.
again the facts prove you wrong.
>
> I actually had it at first because a few hobbyists in Christchurch ran
> a BBS called Equinox. Just For Fun.
As we had Dawghaus here in Palmy who had to pay for access.
>>
> Much later, commercial interests saw the hard work had been done and
> bullied everyone else out. And then claimed they invented the whole
> idea.
No however Java, ASP, and a whole raft of inovations have happened sine
then, these have been driven by commercial needs for secure
transactions,as had things like VPN etc.
>
> >they have a limited supply product that you can not duplicate, copy, give
> >away, pirate or otherwise.
>
> Of course you can.
So you can set up a duplicate internet ?, with what, whoes network will
run the backbone etc.
>
> And quite cheaply now too: Wireless LAN's and connection shareing has
> seen to that. And long may it continue.
you do not have wireless connections to the US do you ?. Apart from that
wireless lans suffer from a limited supply of bandwidth, it is a finite
resource, they also suffer from being LOCAL.
> What a load of crap: the infalliability of commercial interests has
> recently been shown for the utter bunk it always was. Enron, Worldcom,
> BCCI, and countless others put paid to the idea commerce is somehow
> all knowing and benevolent.
Ah..so the evidence of 4 companies out of probably a billion world wide
is proof.
>
> They invested billions of dollars not because patents protected the
> investment: they did NOT have patents.
no, that PAID the people who did.
>
> They did it because they saw money in it. Monthly fees. For providing
> a service (product).
yep, just as you work because you can get paid, and they also then
provided employment for others.
>
> Patents were not in the equation and never were.
>
> Laughable.
yes they were, they paid the same as everyone else who used a product
where a ptaent was held, it was part of the cost of the equipment.
There is for example a patent on the ball point pen, the fact that you
do not pay it directly does not mean it does not exist.
> >because the real guts behind software comes from professional
> >programmers
>
> It does not.
Oh, and who wrote Linux initially ?
>
> 'professional programmers' write uninspiring shit like databases and
> point of sales systems for the local Council or Video Rental shop.
> They all, almost to a man, HATE it. They wish they could do something
> INTERESTING. Like the hobbyists do.
>
> And how do I know ?
>
> I know a few of them; and all I have read of others tells me they were
> not unusual.
Funny I know the same about hair dressers, stock car racers, electronics
engineers etc. Computer programmers are no different than any other
profession.
>
> The 'real guts' comes from small groups or individuals who came up
> with a novel idea, or from the students at universities.
And these people also work for large companies, JAVA comes to mind,
Hypercard is another.
>
> >whos income is derived from commercial software,
>
> That's the only reason for doing such drudgery.
no it is to earn a living, if everything they did could be gained for
free they would not be able to earn that living.
>
> >amateurs generate very little towards this fundamental core,
>
> And what the hell would you know ?
A lot.
>
> >they simply do not have the knowledge,
>
> How do you know ?
because the issues are massive. to write an OS is a non trivial task.
you only need to lok at the people who did the initial work and a lo9t
since.
>
> >experiance and skills.
>
> Plenty of them are actually more skilled than your 'professional'
> programmers.
hell i know of doctors who are highly skilled drivers, mechanics,
musicians, chefs, and in many cases they are a damn sight better that
these things than some of the "professionals". However that still does
not negate my point.
>
> >Without this core there is nothing else.
>
> If you are going to make things up, atleast try to make it
> believeable.
No, the core is what the rest of the OS hangs on. Are you sure that you
consult, your view of an OS is highly simplistic.
>
> >> That is only ONE of your mistakes.
> >
> >no it is one of your fundamental ones, you fail to see that once
> >knowldge becomes free it has no value to anyone else and people will not
> >pay for something that can be gained for free, therefore the people who
> >create that knowledge will not be there because they can earn nothing
> >from it.
>
> That is a great argument against the human race ever coming down out
> of the trees.
>
> History (and evolution) profoundly disprove your parochial assertion.
actually the prove it. Evolution is a non issue in this debate. however
when you look at civilastions and their sucess it is based on some form
of technological advantage, and they jellously guarded that advantage.
>
> >> Or they work at the local supermarket, university or garage.
> >
> >In the main no they don't, the can not gain the knowledge, experiance
> >from those jobs to do the hard tasks. that requires professionals.
>
> And what exactly is a Professional Programmer ?
>
> Someone who gets paid for it assumedly. Which proves nothing except a
> minimal ability.
or it simply proves you have a simplistic idea of whats involved and are
unwilling to look at the realism behind it all. One can simplify
anything to essentials, surgery after all is at its core cutting and
sewing, yet I would not want a seamstress doing surgery on me even
though she may cut and sew neater than a surgeon.
I wonder, have YOU ever done any programming ?
>
>
> Brendan (Avatar)
Peter B.
Looked them up. Basically all biassed, but they do have some
interesting points.
mr-p
I don't think there is an unbiased point of view, but the ascap link was
included for balance.
I think the Courtney Love article raises interesting questions as to
whether it is possible to get any quality music through this system now.
I grew up with the music of Cream, Yes, Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Jimi
Hendrix, The Doors, now all we get is NSync and Limp Biscuit and Britney
Spears and stuff that sounds the same as that.
Any incentive for creativity got lost long ago.
Anyone looking for real music has to look a long way outside the
Hollywood cabal, yet they are the ones which threaten the open nature of
the hardware we can use to look further afield for real music.
Chrissy
<<snip>>
> there's more to life than newsgroups.
Where are your references?
Fancy making such a sweeping unsupported statement.
Chrissy.
;-)
Peter B.
>Peter B. wrote:
>> Looked them up. Basically all biassed, but they do have some
>> interesting points.
>
>I don't think there is an unbiased point of view, but the ascap link was
>included for balance.
Beginning to come to that concluusion myself.
>I think the Courtney Love article raises interesting questions as to
>whether it is possible to get any quality music through this system now.
>I grew up with the music of Cream, Yes, Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Jimi
>Hendrix, The Doors, now all we get is NSync and Limp Biscuit and Britney
>Spears and stuff that sounds the same as that.
>Any incentive for creativity got lost long ago.
>Anyone looking for real music has to look a long way outside the
>Hollywood cabal, yet they are the ones which threaten the open nature of
>the hardware we can use to look further afield for real music.
Amen to that!
Peter B.
commented:
>Peter B wrote
><<snip>>
>> there's more to life than newsgroups.
>
>Where are your references?
Giving them up for Lent (After all, April1 must be coming up, if one
looks at some of the postings)
>
>Fancy making such a sweeping unsupported statement.
And a big raspberry to you too :-p
Chrissy
> Chrissy wrote:
>
> >> The Open Source movement is a direct counter example.
> >
> >The Open Source movement relies on people developing
> >small bits of poorly defined add-ons
>
> It does not.
It does.
> >to a bits and pieces system
>
> The system is so good an example of How to Do Things Right that most
> universities use it as a core resource for teaching computer science.
How do you know what most universities do? They don't. Some
lecturers at some universities do share your view - most do not.
Most, on my experience, express some benefit in Open Source but
do not preach it. They may totally believe it or they may not but
they all seem to be a little brighter than preaching to comp sci
students that software development should not be paid for. They
would be, in effect, telling their students to work hard, learn lots
then go out and work your butt off for nothing.
There are, on the other hand, plenty of students who support
Open Source - and, in my experience, these students are all
most always without any commercial experience.
> So: You are totally wrong. As per usual.
Actually I am totally right.
> >in an adhoc way
>
> The entire Internet is ad-hoc; ad-hoc succeeded where your commercial
> interests failed. Repeatedly. And still do.
Why do you think they are "my commercial interests"? If they were
I would be able to sit back and spend the millions but alas, I can't.
I know commercial interests fail. MS will, one day, probably fail.
In the mean time they will generate jobs which will support people.
families, communities, companies etc - Open Source will not.
It will enable people to get software for nothing but it will stop
the "desiring" of anything - it will be ad-hoc.
Ad-hoc development is not the same as an ad-hoc connection of
computers. Ad-hoc development means not central design - something
that is important to good systems.
> >to address a very specific
>
> Wrong.
>
> It addresses a wide range of needs; indeed, hundreds of thousands or
> millions. Each contributor had his only need, and contributed to
> fulfil that. There have been hundreds of thousands of such
> contributors. Hence, hundreds of thousands of needs are met.
>
> Unlike commercial enterprise, where only one need is met: profit. All
> other needs that are met are purely accidental.
>
> >need that is then forced to address a general need.
>
> There has been no force and there could not be.
Explain that please.
Someone devolves something for their own specific need. They
"release" it as Open Source. It eventually, after a few modifications,
becomes part of the system and is used for a general need. i.e. - what
I said is true.
> The general needs are met because they are common and because people
> wish to meet them.
>
> This has been achived. It will be achived ever more profoundly.
>
> Your argument is non existant.
Your arguments seems to consist of "I said so it is so therefore
you are wrong" - that does not stand up to any scrutiny.
> >An integrated, formalized approach to development can
> >produce better products but,
>
> That is incorrect.
>
> I think we have enough real world examples now to show that this
> assumption of yours is flimsy at best, and outright wrong if the truth
> be known.
You have give NO examples so how can they prove that an integrated,
formalized approach to development cannot produce better products?
Note, I said "can" - sometimes it does not - most times it does.
> >without IP no company could do this.
>
> We do not need companies to do it AT ALL.
We do. If commercial interests do not develop so many
products, in particular software, then most of it will NEVER be
produced.
> >Development would still happen but people and
> >organizations will only develop for themselves.
>
> Which is fine and as it should be.
>
> There are enough people with a few hours spare each day to supply
> hundreds of times the required man hours. For free.
The good ones work at it. The ones who cannot work at it don't.
The good ones want to work at it. They also want to eat and have
a place to live in. They cannot do this if they are not getting paid
for the work they do. Take anyone who is good at their job and
ask them to do it for nothing and see what happens.
I love computing - I can only do it all day BECAUSE someone
wants to pay me. If they pay me to computer (in any way) then
that is good. If they pay me for something else but allow me to
do whatever I want with my time I will choose to compute in
some way. If they refuse to pay me then I cannot compute unless
someone else pays me or supports me in some way because I
need money.
> >There will
> >be no general development companies because no one
> >will buy products that they are free to copy.
>
> They may be able to copy the blueprints (source code). But until we
> have 3d printers or nanotechnology, they will not be copying the
> products. The physical products.
You jump from software to general products at will to try to
prove your points. If the product is software then the product
will be copied - if it is something more solid then the design will
be copied - if it is a drug then the formula will be copied.
> You will still have to buy them. Millions can be employed at this
> level - and are, now. The vast bulk.
>
> Except the products will be better and cheaper. Because every one's
> best ideas can be used.
They will not be better because the best people at innovating will
need to earn a living and will not be free to innovate.
> >IP is necessary.
>
> It is not, and history shows this well.
History does not show it.
It is simple. People need money in our society. They get it
from working (or financial support in some other way). They
usually get more from working than in any other way. The
capable ones work. The most capable ones are offered more
money so they are even more willing to work. They work at
what they like IF they are good enough to have a choice.
No one will pay them to innovate if there is not the possibility
of getting that money back. They get it back when they
sell the product. They need IP and copyright and patents
etc so they can afford to do the next bit of innovation. If
they cannot recoup the money their business fails and we
all pay anyway. One way or another we do pay for the
development.
Chrissy.
bt
wrote:
>>If you are reduced to old wives tales to support your argument.. You
>>do not have an argument.
>
>It was an observation,
It was an 'adage'. You called it that yourself. Stop trying to modify
your argument aftre you offer it.
>and obviously valid, since that was all you could come up with.
The validity of an adage is not contingent on my comments about your
poor debating skills. The existance of the second does not validate
the first.
But I am not surprised you would think it does. I am undecided if this
is an artifact of your poor debating skills, or a symptom of your
incompetence generally.
And my original comment stands: it's a poor man who must rely on old
catch phrases and adages to respond to an argument about free advicve
and patent laws: if you had a reasoned argument, you would have used
it instead of your grandfather's paradoxical advice on advice.
>T'was a quotation about advice, which you are so full of, which is why
>the snip to just what it was referring to.
I may offer advice as I have experiance and knowledge.
You may whine about my advice, as that is all you can do.
>Ligthen up - there's more to life than newsgroups.
I'll 'lighten up' when one or two here get off my back just because I
have a few unusual opinions!
bt
wrote:
>>So you say. Every time. With nauseating predictability.
>>It's like you have no original thoughts.
>
>Actually, I usually state that I disagree,
You do not.
>which is generally not predicatable.
As it hardly ever happens, no it's not predictable.
>And I generally examine contrary opinions to find why I
>disagree with them.
I think you operate from a gut revulsion at a concept, and operate
backwards from there in the attempt to make it seem reasoned.
>>Profit is the primary result of exploiting a market. Such exploitation
>>is most effective with a monopoly position in that market.
>>Commerce 101.
>
>Academic nonsense, then, If this were true, Commerce 301 would not
>contradict it.
Commerce 401 shows how 301 is a ideology and not practice.
>>>That byproduct is what funds further research, for the next ways of
>>>meeting needs or for meeting new needs.
>>
>>That's the theory, yes, not the fact all too often.
>>
>Only for those who don't look at the facts.
But those of us who watch the news know it to be true.
>>I have repeatedly stated I am not a communist. The only people
>>claiming I am a communist are those I am defeating in debate. I am,
>>apparently, more right-leaning that David Farrar, who works for the
>>National Party.
>
>I did not state that you were - only that you come across that way.
>There is a difference.
I am not responsible for the erroneous views of other people.
>>Claims I am communist are the work of a weak mind losing his debate.
>
>What debate?
Weak debating tactic number 95: pretend ignorance.
>Actually, intelligent behaviour is very reminiscent of how viruses
>act; they adapt to the environment, as well as adapt the environment
>to themselves.
Virii do not.
You are thinking of Bacteria.
>>Your attempt to simplify the situation to such an extent illustrates
>>beyond doubt that you do not understand it, nor the arguments at hand.
>
>And you attempt to change the argument to suit your level of
>knowledge, without understanding the concepts.
I am being told, constantly, that I do not understand. This is ALWAYS
by people who themselves do not understand - usually to a more
profound level.
There have even been studies done into this phenomenon; studies into
Incompetence. The meat of them is that an incompetent person lacks the
ability to assess accurately their own performance, and usually over
estimates their own skill and under estimates other peoples.
That would be you. And a few others here. You can tell the types: they
are always first in shouing people down and telling everyone how
stupid the person is.
In my experiance, people who truly know what they are talking about
will often stop to correct the other person with clear examples. They
make sense quickly and can be applied over a range of scenarios. And
they show little to no umbrage, attitude, or frustration. They are
intelligent enough to keep ego out of it.
That would not be you. Mr 'utter nonsense'.
Then there are people who are simply smart. How do you know if you are
smart ? Well, one particularly good method is how well you model the
world or a given system mentally. If the model is accurate,
predicitions based upon it will also be accurate. And you are there
fore smart in direct proportion to the accuracy of said predicitions.
It's a relative scale.
If you are not so smart your predicitions will often go awry. You will
constantly be making fix ups at the last moment. Or possibly angry at
how the world refuses to follow your own 'good sense'.
Having predicted from as little as a half dozen messages from you,
what the first few dozen lines of your message would contain (in
general terms, with one specific example - 'nonsense') before reading
it, I think I am safe in assuming that you are one of the above
mentioned incompetents.
Feel free to prove me wrong with a stunning display of intellectual
integrity, sweeping examples, profound logic and good grace.
>Now, are we finished with the insults?
You may finish at any time.
>Religion is something that only secondarily can be taught. It must primarily be caught.
Smartest thing you have yet said. Pity it's not yours. And rude that
you do not attribute it.
bt
<posta...@localhost.net> wrote:
>> >No, take the CD for instance, that was a new development that took a hell
>> >of a lot of money to develop into a commercial product.
>>
>> All of which has been recovered a hundred times over - yet the prices
>> are still high.
>
>well i call the cost of CDRs dropping from $30 to less than $1 not an a
>high cost.
You were talking about the cost of CD's, NOT CDR's.
You have again altered your argument after the fact. It is a tactic of
someone losing a debate.
>> >So, what you are asying that that a new drug therapy that cost about
>> >1BILLION to develop will no only cost 100 MILLION,
>>
>> Perhaps even less.
>
>perhaps...where is the evidence of this apart from wishfull thinking ?
As you have repeatedly stated it is 'self evident'.
>> Possibly; although I think it'd be more likly the market would reduce
>> the prices down to what the market would stand - in true capitalistic
>> competitive style. That being a figure some small amount above cost.
>
>Cost to develop 1 billion,
Prove it.
>> In a debate, a weak opponent will often seize on any chance to
>> introduce emotive invective or inflammatory populism as you have just
>> done.
>
>however microsoft does have competiotn.
Microsoft has been found guilty of using unfair, illegal and
anti-compettive means to remove that competition, succeeding in many
instances.
This is illegal, and rightfully so.
Your on-going attempts to obscure this fact again speak to the
weakness of your argument.
>> >Actually, in NZ the majority of research is paid for by private
>> >companies,
>>
>> And here you try to move the goal posts. Another gambit from a weak
>> debator.
>
>huh, you were saying how the tax payer paid for the research, i simply
>stated that the majority of research is done by private companies, no
>shifting of any goal post, just a simple refution of what you tried to
>claim.
You stated much of the reasearch done in NZ was via private companies
(and I'd like to see the evidence for that too, thanks).
Thereby altering the argument, which had previously encompassed
practice for the whole world. It was a pretty obvious attempt to alter
the terms of referance for the debate into an area you thought you
could win from.
While somewhat cunning, it is the option of someone losing the debate.
After all, who would resort to such dishonesty if they had a good
argument to offer ?
>> Such jobs would be replaced as primary research become the focus of
>> industry rather than IP law and the leveraging or avoiding of patents.
>
>how, these people must be paid, therefore research costs money.
Money provided by the increased market size and increased competition.
>the time
>and cost to develop something new and inovative will always be higher
>then the cost of simply copying a product.
Prove it.
And I disagree.
>Therefore it is self evident
>that there is a huge disincentive to do research because any gains you
>make are available at no cost to everyone else,
And theirs are likewise available to you.
>therefore your costs are
>much higher and yet your ability to pay for that research has been
>destroyed.
Only if you are trying to apply the current paradigm - which has a
relativly few people working on a project.
If you accept the alternative - a model based losly on the Open Source
model - you have many thousands of people working on the project in a
number of ways. Most will simply be supplying computer power; others
will provide programming skill and others will provide key knowledge
elements (for example, protein models).
And when there is something to produce, a factory will see profit in
selling it. Along with many others no doubt.
And it is indeed possible: there are a couple of projects starting now
that virtualize Cells in order that different drugs can be tested upon
them. This both accelerates drug research by orders of magnitude AND
reduces cost, AND increases the number of research projects involved.
Any doctor can participate.
Take the above example further, we might also apply various artificial
life techniques to it, and essentially 'evolve' the new drugs. Anyone
could participate - all they need is a few spare cycles on their
computer.
Other examples also exist: cancer research, key searches, seti, etc. I
suspect earth crossing asteroid finding would make another good one
too.
There is no reason to leave this technology at this level. Why can't
we extend the paradigm ? Almost anything can be modelled in a computer
now days, and therefore computed in a distributed style. And with the
Net, it can be done for 'free'.
Don't know what you find soo difficult to grasp about this.
>> So: your virtuous industry spends 100 Billion dollars developing
>> drugs, 99% of which are unusable.
>>
>> It sounds like the system does NOT work at all. It sounds like it has
>> more money than it knows what to do with, and a success rate of 1% is
>> unacceptible.
>
>You seem to lack some fundamental knowledge as to how complex the human
>body and its biological systems are.
It seems you lack faith in the very paradigm you insist I believe in.
>even simple molecules like alcohol
>do more than get you drunk, and those effects are also dependant on the
>individual person and a lot of other things in their life. there is also
>the problem of drug interactions that must be sorted, it is no point
>taking say an antibiotic which by itself is OK, and a pain killer which
>by itsself are OK, but when mixed can give you a brain hemorage.
The area of research that will provide these answers is Protein
research. This can be modelled on computers with great accuracy.
>> Time for a new paradigm.
>
>no time for you to lear how complex the problem is.
Time for you to stop admitting defeat so easily.
>> 1. Drugs would be developed in Universities and hospitals, with tax
>> payer money and at no profit. Drug factories could tender for the
>> contracts to manufactor them.
>
>they do already, however simply because the money is taken from the tax
>payer does not mean no one is meeting the costs.
The costs are being met by way of cheaper drugs and therefore better
health.
>Why should they tender for the right, they are in your world free to copy it at no charge.
They are not tendering for the right. That is simply another of your
attempts to mis-state my argument deliberatly because yours is soo
weak it cannot stand on it's own.
They are tendering for the CONTRACT as I SAID. READ IT.
The government is CONTRACTING said company to make X number of crates
of the given drug for Y price.
Other companies might well take the research and make them as well.
And sell them to Whom ? Probably someone - but they'd take their
chaces on the open market.
But that's OK - we'd be able to do the same right on back.
It's essentially sharing the costs of medicine with the entire rest of
the world, through the agency of the free market.
>> 2. Extending the current efforts in peer to peer distributed computing
>> (various protein folding projects for example) into a wider effort,
>> small or large researchers could harness the power of millions of
>> years of spare computing time to model new drugs. And they could do it
>> for free, as they do now, massivly reducing the cost of development.
>
>No, it is not free,
Close enough.
>you are simply donating now rather than at the end.
You are donating something you have plenty of.
>The computer is not free,
But very cheap, and getting cheaper every month.
>the net is not free
But is cheaper than a drug company.
>and the computer is only part of the issue.
A major part.
>> Either or both of these could b done in a GPL like fashion, and would
>> work best this way; both systems would and could be run in parallel.
>
>Still need the money.
But much less of it.
>the people don't work for free.
Sure they do.
>Not only that then there is all the trials,
Lots of people would sign up for them too.
>will a drug be usefull during what part of a
>womans menstral cycle, their hormones change as they do with age, then
>there are racial issues, enviromental issues,
Lots of people sign up for that now, for free. They are not paid.
>none of these can be simulated.
Yet.
>> >That is self evident.
>>
>> What is self evident is that you are unable to innovate.
>
>no, inovation IS happening and it happening at an accelerating rate all
>around the world.
Due to the increased shareing of knowledge and information.
A process I would expand even further!
>> www.sourceforge.net contains many projects, some finished, some not,
>> some popular (cdex), some not. It is one of thousands of examples.
>
>What, lots of effort going into useless products...
Says YOU, who is completely biased.
MILLIONS of people find it useful.
>say, just how many
>useful and successful bits of software are there compared to how many
>are written and are never used because something better comes
>along...sounds like the same issue that drug companies face.
Millions I'd say.
Costs little or nothing.
>> The rest you will need to find yourself, as I suspect you are
>> employing yet another weak-debator tactic: wearying the opponent with
>> endless calls for evidence you have no intention of reading.
>
>But the evidence is only worthwhile to your eyes, not to anyone esles.
Ahh, another weak debator tactic!: pretend you have majority support.
You are just full of it.
>> Another weak debator tactic: link logically unrelated assertions
>> togeather, and draw an unrelated conclusion. Done well, it looks like
>> a good, logical argument and would fool many. Politicians and Cult
>> leaders use it often.
>
>not unrelated at all.
Backpeddle.
>> 2. People's choice of operating system has been found to be denied by
>> the actions of a convicted monopoly - so they have not 'chosen' at
>> all.
>
>the linux in all its variation would not exist, neither would apple, or
>BSD etc.
So, you are saying you know better than a Judge and Jury, several
months worth of arguments from both sides, expert witnesses, and reams
of case studies and Law books ?
>> And just because YOU feel it IS too hard is ALSO neither here not
>> there.
>
>Well i have 90% of the population on my side,
PROVE IT.
That's what you can never just manage: supporting evidence.
And of course it's another example of that weak debator tactic you are
warming to: pretending you have majority support.
>the fact is i use a hep of different OS's,
All heresay.
>I collect old computers, so I use CPM, CPM+, TRS-DOS,
>NewDOS-80, MS-DOS, Pro-DOS, I am learning more about RSX-11, etc.
All irrelevant, all heresay.
Until you have a statiscally significant sampling of people saying
they 'find Linux too hard', it's all just bullshit.
>> The majority of people find Windows 'too hard' also. I am paid money
>> by such people, so *I* would know.
>
>I too am paid money to do consulting work
Given your oft-stated biases, I'm surprised.
>as well as electrical/electronics development work
Ahh! The second shoe drops!
You are protecting your arse! Should have known!
>so I understand the costs involved, the time involved and so on.
I tutor people as well (with Windows).
I think I can say that most people find Windows to be quite difficult.
Once having grasped Windows however, Linux takes little time to grasp
also.
>> >I remember when all the PC weenies who candemed the Mac as real people
>> >used command lines are now using what...GUI's too. It is ONLY because so
>> >much of the paradigms behind the GUI have been developed commerciall
>> >that linux has been able to catch up, there was no development work
>> >needed.
>>
>> Another set of poorly connected conclusions.
>
>no actaully its very good one.
But you WOULD HAVE TO say that, wouldn't you ?
>> 1. What does GUI's have to do with the topic ? Linux has multiple
>> GUI's a user may select from, and multiple command shells.
>
>because all the work involving the diferent interaction were worked out
>by others,
Yeah, back when Writing was invented. Scratch that: back when people
drew on cave walls.
>linux got that work without paying for it.
So did your loverly Microsoft and Apple.
>it is NOT as simple as you may think,
So you keep saying. You just cannot prove it.
>it is ONLY because commercial products developed it and refined it
After having stolen it from a think tank...
>that all that work did not have to be done by the linux community.
And it's only because of the Open Source philosophy that your
commercial interests got to have a go on the Internet.
And your precious companies did NOT invent the Graphical User
Interface either. They embellished it.
>> 2. The concept of the GUI came from a pure research basis, and was
>> judged as not commercially viable. All the 'paradigms' were created
>> then; what has followed has been embellishment.
>
>No. the Xerox research facility at Palo Alto was entirely commercial,
Never said it wasn't; however the research was pure reasearch.
The researchers thought it was some good stuff; the Vaunted Commerical
Interests whom you worship soo diligently said it was not worth
anything.
>they ahd to pay for it out of profits from other areas. There efforts
>compared to todays GUIs was crude by any standards.
But still count.
Your Microsoft did not invent it. Nor Apple. And that is what we are
talking about.
>> 3. Your vaunted paragons of commerce had to 'catch up' with Mosaic and
>> the World Wide Web: a concept born out of the free exchange of indeas
>> and code now recognised as Open Source. A concept now worth trillions
>> of dollars a year - and all from a paradigm YOU dismiss as unworkable.
>
>Again, mosaic was crude...where is it now ?
Still counts. And it was Open. And Microsoft used it for thei IE, as
did many others. It's the basis for all of them.
Must really piss you off.
>i was using the net when Telnet and then Gopher was the only way.
I was using it when it was steam powered and a server crash meant
twisted metal and explosions requiring fire engines.
>> >well I have a laptop at work that has run everyday for 3 years with
>> >nothing more than a defrag.
>>
>> As unbeliveable as that is, it is also irrelevant. This debate does
>> not rely on the specifics of your laptop.
>
>no it relies only my experiance with a whole range of hardware and
>software.
Oh, does it indeed ? You really think I started this debate to debate
your parochial take on the world ?
>My experiance tells me that the Mac is easier than both.
People do not want EASY at the expense of Power.
And how do I know that ?
The ratio of 4x4 compared to Uno's on the road.
>> >Actually the hardware behind the internet is patented and it started by
>> >running on patented software.
>>
>> That is incorrect and irrelevant.
>
>it is correct and totally relevant. Fibre optics is patented, and this
>forms the backbone of the net. Firmware used in routers, frame relays,
>etc is all copyright too.
It may be so. But that is not how the net got STARTED, which is what
you WERE talking about before you AGAIN changed your argument.
>> If you wish to convince anyone you will need to supply some pretty
>> solid evidence for this claim.
>
>Done.
Where ? I see a lot of bald assertions, opinions stated as facts, and
so on.
So referances.
Little enough logical argument too.
And a whole screed of bad debator shit.
>> So, your argument is that because NASA paid for our link to the US, or
>> because some modems had proprietry code in their ROM, the Internet is
>> somehow the product of commerce ?
>>
>> Laughable.
>
>no the explosion of users, the resulting need for and supply of
>increased bandwidth and the need to share these costs across a larger
>user base was what drove the net, as well as the commercialisation of it.
Ahh, modifying your argumnt again. But atleast you are telling us
about it now. Yay.
1. First, the popularity of it in Universities and Polytechnics drove
a popularity outside of them.
2. Then BBS's provided public access to the Net.
3. Commercial interests than, belatedly, saw money in it - after the
hard work had been done, and took advantage of the gorwing popularity.
They also then did a lot of advertising making it even more in demand.
And in NZ, Telecom did this and then whined about it being a strain on
their network, and 'can we please be excused from our contract with
the taxpayer'.
Steps 1 and 2 were in a non-commercial, no-profit setting.
Step 3 was another example of commerce usurping the hard work of the
true innovators, making a hash of it, leveraging it, over charging for
it, trying to exclude the BBS's and anyone else from the trough, and
finally claiming they invented it.
>> >you only have it because someone saw financila and commercial gain,
>>
>> Nope.
>
>again the facts prove you wrong.
The only facts you will accept are those that reinforce your own
preconceptions.
Anything else - no matter how correct - is automatically dismissed.
And that is why I WILL NOT waste extra time providing any *more* links
and referances for you to read. It is YOUR TURN to provide the
referances. I'll not carry you any more.
>> I actually had it at first because a few hobbyists in Christchurch ran
>> a BBS called Equinox. Just For Fun.
>
>As we had Dawghaus here in Palmy who had to pay for access.
Oh, Equinox charged too: just to cover costs however. E.g. not for
profit.
>> Much later, commercial interests saw the hard work had been done and
>> bullied everyone else out. And then claimed they invented the whole
>> idea.
>
>No
Yes.
>however Java, ASP, and a whole raft of inovations have happened sine
>then,
Many of which are free, and open source.
And those that are not are finding it hard.
>these have been driven by commercial needs for secure
>transactions,as had things like VPN etc.
And yet the most popular encryption systems these use are all open
source or publically vetted or developed in universities.
>> >they have a limited supply product that you can not duplicate, copy, give
>> >away, pirate or otherwise.
>>
>> Of course you can.
>
>So you can set up a duplicate internet ?,
Sure. It's being done now - it's called 'Internet 2', and is being
payed for from the Taxpayer's pocket.
Other, smaller efforts exist too.
But the internet is here, it works, and there is little reason for
re-inventing it as yet.
>with what,
Wireless lan's, sat links, leased lines, all sorts.
>whoes network will run the backbone etc.
Any that looks good.
>> And quite cheaply now too: Wireless LAN's and connection shareing has
>> seen to that. And long may it continue.
>
>you do not have wireless connections to the US do you ?.
Sure you do. And one day the bandwidth will be worth the effort. Might
take as long as 5 or 10 years though.
In the mean time people would just have to share the cost of a sat
link or leased line.
>Apart from that wireless lans suffer from a limited supply of bandwidth,
Which is still 2 or 3 orders of magnitude MORE than we get on a modem.
>it is a finite resource,
As the range of the transmissions is fairly short, the same
freqeuncies can be reused in different areas of town.
Longer distances can be achived with beam areials of different types,
leased circuts, or power lines.
>they also suffer from being LOCAL.
Until you link all the local nets up.
>> What a load of crap: the infalliability of commercial interests has
>> recently been shown for the utter bunk it always was. Enron, Worldcom,
>> BCCI, and countless others put paid to the idea commerce is somehow
>> all knowing and benevolent.
>
>Ah..so the evidence of 4 companies out of probably a billion world wide
>is proof.
4 of the biggest companies in the world. And it's hardly just 4 - the
list of failed companies exceeds the list of successful ones 100 fold.
Another tactic of the weak debator: disengenious misdirection.
>> They did it because they saw money in it. Monthly fees. For providing
>> a service (product).
>
>yep, just as you work because you can get paid, and they also then
>provided employment for others.
Not relevant to the patent debate.
>> >because the real guts behind software comes from professional
>> >programmers
>>
>> It does not.
>
>Oh, and who wrote Linux initially ?
A student.
>> >whos income is derived from commercial software,
>>
>> That's the only reason for doing such drudgery.
>
>no it is to earn a living,
That's what I said.
Comprehension problems ?
>if everything they did could be gained for
>free they would not be able to earn that living.
If everything they did could be gained for free, they'd have a
considerably easier job.
>> >amateurs generate very little towards this fundamental core,
>>
>> And what the hell would you know ?
>
>A lot.
Then prove it.
>> >they simply do not have the knowledge,
>>
>> How do you know ?
>
>because the issues are massive. to write an OS is a non trivial task.
A student managed it; and others have done so since. And will again.
>you only need to lok at the people who did the initial work and a lo9t
>since.
All for free.
Unless you're microsoft. In which case it cost you 100 million dollars
US to write Internet Explorer.
>> >experiance and skills.
>>
>> Plenty of them are actually more skilled than your 'professional'
>> programmers.
>
>hell i know of doctors who are highly skilled drivers, mechanics,
>musicians, chefs, and in many cases they are a damn sight better that
>these things than some of the "professionals". However that still does
>not negate my point.
Does actually.
>> >Without this core there is nothing else.
>>
>> If you are going to make things up, atleast try to make it
>> believeable.
>
>No, the core is what the rest of the OS hangs on. Are you sure that you
>consult, your view of an OS is highly simplistic.
YOUR view is overly complicated. Probably comes from bullshitting your
poor clients.
>> That is a great argument against the human race ever coming down out
>> of the trees.
>>
>> History (and evolution) profoundly disprove your parochial assertion.
>
>actually the prove it. Evolution is a non issue in this debate.
It is the very core of the debate: software and programming are a
creative process; the progress of this process over time is an
evolutionary progression.
>however
>when you look at civilastions and their sucess it is based on some form
>of technological advantage, and they jellously guarded that advantage.
Unsuccessfully.
>> Someone who gets paid for it assumedly. Which proves nothing except a
>> minimal ability.
>
>or it simply proves you have a simplistic idea of whats involved and are
>unwilling to look at the realism behind it all.
I simply speak of an alternative that is working. It is successfully
competeting against one of the most agressive and richest companies in
the world.
And I think the idea can be expanded.
YOU are incapable of thinking outside of your little box.
>One can simplify
>anything to essentials, surgery after all is at its core cutting and
>sewing, yet I would not want a seamstress doing surgery on me even
>though she may cut and sew neater than a surgeon.
And one may use hyperbole in the attempt to win a debate - but run the
risk of being caught out in it.
Like you just have.
>I wonder, have YOU ever done any programming ?
I would wonder if you have used any open source software.
But I need not: you have.
Which defeats much of your argument. Such as it was.
Can you try a little harder next time ? It's getting boring and
repetitive.
Chrissy
> bt wrote
> ......
> >Unlike commercial enterprise, where only one need is met: profit. All
> >other needs that are met are purely accidental.
>
>
> Profit is a byproduct of meeting needs in all commercial companies.
> meeting needs or for meeting new needs.
>
> communist!
What I don't get is his total apparent inability to see that everything
has to be free or nothing has to be free. He seems to be trying to
say that any intellectual input should be free but "real" input should
be paid for - you pay for the box but not the designing of it.
BTW - that is not communism - that is just stupidity. Communism
says it is all for everyone and everyone gives what they can and gets
what they need. In his view he is saying the intellectual ones give for
free and everyone pays for what they get - he has not addressed the
need to the intellectual ones to get money so they are fed and rested
enough to continue on their intellectual pursuits.
Chrissy.
Chrissy
> Peter B. wrote:
> >What utter nonsense!
>
> So you say. Every time. With nauseating predictability.
>
> It's like you have no original thoughts.
Why should he - he will get no credit for them. ;-)
> >Profit is a byproduct of meeting needs in all commercial companies.
>
> Nope.
>
> Profit is the primary result of exploiting a market. Such exploitation
> is most effective with a monopoly position in that market.
>
> Commerce 101.
Try studying the next level - it is
Commerce 102 - Supply and Demand
> I have repeatedly stated I am not a communist. The only people
> claiming I am a communist are those I am defeating in debate. I am,
> apparently, more right-leaning that David Farrar, who works for the
> National Party.
I believe even David was a little left wing at one time. At least that
is the view reported when he had a "discussion" with my father.
Chrissy.
Chrissy
> bt commented:
> >I have repeatedly stated I am not a communist. The only people
> >claiming I am a communist are those I am defeating in debate. I am,
> >apparently, more right-leaning that David Farrar, who works for the
> >National Party.
>
> I did not state that you were - only that you come across that way.
> There is a difference.
Go easy on the guy - I don't think he did English 101 or logic 101.
Chrissy.
Chrissy
> In my experiance, people who truly know what they are talking about
> will often stop to correct the other person with clear examples. They
> make sense quickly and can be applied over a range of scenarios. And
> they show little to no umbrage, attitude, or frustration. They are
> intelligent enough to keep ego out of it.
>
> That would not be you. Mr 'utter nonsense'.
You do not seem to be keeping ego out of it - so, aggording to your
statement, you are not according enough to do this therefore you are
not in the group of people who truly know what they are talking about.
> Then there are people who are simply smart. How do you know if you are
> smart ? Well, one particularly good method is how well you model the
> world or a given system mentally. If the model is accurate,
> predicitions based upon it will also be accurate. And you are there
> fore smart in direct proportion to the accuracy of said predicitions.
> It's a relative scale.
>
> If you are not so smart your predicitions will often go awry. You will
> constantly be making fix ups at the last moment. Or possibly angry at
> how the world refuses to follow your own 'good sense'.
Like Leonardo, Einstein ...... ?
Chrissy
Hop Sc0tch
bt <b...@memelabs.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>That's the theory, yes, not the fact all too often.
> >>
> >Only for those who don't look at the facts.
>
> But those of us who watch the news know it to be true.
>
Well there you have it, TV1 and/or TV3 is the fount of all knowledge, no
wonder your opinion are so totally screwed up, it is based on the biases
and opinions of others and has no real world experiances.
mr-p
Just like you and everyone else.
We would have no need for a language if we didn't tell each other stories.
Bruce Simpson
>I think the Courtney Love article raises interesting questions as to
>whether it is possible to get any quality music through this system now.
>I grew up with the music of Cream, Yes, Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Jimi
>Hendrix, The Doors, now all we get is NSync and Limp Biscuit and Britney
>Spears and stuff that sounds the same as that.
>Any incentive for creativity got lost long ago.
Hey dude, you're just getting old!
I'm sure our parents said exactly the same things when we bought our
Black Sabath, Uriah Heap, Led Zepplin and other "records" and began
playing them on the stereo.
"Bloody modern music -- it's just crap! Now Bing Crosby/Frank
Sinatra/Andy Williams/etc, *that's* music!"
And, in 20-30 years time I'm sure our kids will be telling their kids
that the new music is crap and the old music is good.
The reality (of course) is that since Steps split up, and since John
left S Club 7 modern music has been in decline (ROTFL) :-)
----
I can be contacted via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/
Peter B.
commented:
>bt wrote
>> In my experiance, people who truly know what they are talking about
>> will often stop to correct the other person with clear examples. They
>> make sense quickly and can be applied over a range of scenarios. And
>> they show little to no umbrage, attitude, or frustration. They are
>> intelligent enough to keep ego out of it.
>>
>> That would not be you. Mr 'utter nonsense'.
>
>You do not seem to be keeping ego out of it - so, aggording to your
>statement, you are not according enough to do this therefore you are
>not in the group of people who truly know what they are talking about.
>
Thank you, Chrissy!
>> Then there are people who are simply smart. How do you know if you are
>> smart ? Well, one particularly good method is how well you model the
>> world or a given system mentally. If the model is accurate,
>> predicitions based upon it will also be accurate. And you are there
>> fore smart in direct proportion to the accuracy of said predicitions.
>> It's a relative scale.
>>
>> If you are not so smart your predicitions will often go awry. You will
>> constantly be making fix ups at the last moment. Or possibly angry at
>> how the world refuses to follow your own 'good sense'.
>
>Like Leonardo, Einstein ...... ?
>
:-)
Peter B.
commented:
>On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 02:58:56 GMT, pe...@formula3-5.com (Peter B.)
>wrote:
>
>>Religion is something that only secondarily can be taught. It must primarily be caught.
>
>Smartest thing you have yet said. Pity it's not yours. And rude that
>you do not attribute it.
You know, you are right! I hadn't realised that the attributation
wasn't there. My humble apologies to Ralph Emerson Fosdick. And I'll
correct it. That's what adaptation is about: adjusting one's thinking,
and correcting the model.
Which is more than I can say about your impressions about "debate". My
experience suggests that the loser is the one who first intimates the
other is losing. Almost as accurate as Godwin's Law.
mr-p
LOL
My kids like Frank Sinatra and Andy Williams, and I listen to dub and
reggae and a lot of club music.
New Zealand now gets about 2 international tours a year, and the sound
companies just do fireworks in the park and dancing diggers or yet
another Riverdance clone.
But local music has never been better. Trinity Roots, Black Seeds, The
Nomad, far too many to name, and more DJs and remixers than you can
shake a stick at.
It reminds me of the famous quote from John Gilmore, a founder member of
the EFF "The Net interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it."
Peter B.
commented:
>On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 03:03:09 GMT, pe...@formula3-5.com (Peter B.)
>wrote:
>
>>>If you are reduced to old wives tales to support your argument.. You
>>>do not have an argument.
>>
>>It was an observation,
>
>It was an 'adage'. You called it that yourself. Stop trying to modify
>your argument aftre you offer it.
The clause following was part of the same sentence.
>
>>and obviously valid, since that was all you could come up with.
>
>The validity of an adage is not contingent on my comments about your
>poor debating skills. The existance of the second does not validate
>the first.
You are right. The comment (and reference to the adage) was based on
your statement about what you do, which showed nothing about the
opinions expressed on patents and copyright.
>But I am not surprised you would think it does. I am undecided if this
>is an artifact of your poor debating skills, or a symptom of your
>incompetence generally.
I don't consider this a debate. There can be no debate unless both
sides are willing to listen to each other. I have shown that I do read
what you write; you have NOT demonstrated a similar trait. Thus, the
debate ended many postings ago, if there was a debate in the first
place, which I doubt.
>And my original comment stands: it's a poor man who must rely on old
>catch phrases and adages to respond to an argument about free advicve
>and patent laws:
And an idiot who thinks he is debating when the only arguments he
accepts are the ones that support his biassed view.
> if you had a reasoned argument, you would have used
>it instead of your grandfather's paradoxical advice on advice.
Ah! When I do attribute a quote, you feel that it has to be mine. Did
you bother looking up Piet Hein? Did you bother looking up what Grooks
were?
And yes, I would have liked him to be my grandfather. Actually, the
one time I met him, he struck me as a person who would have loved to
do away with copyright and patent law.
>>T'was a quotation about advice, which you are so full of, which is why
>>the snip to just what it was referring to.
>
>I may offer advice as I have experiance and knowledge.
>You may whine about my advice, as that is all you can do.
>
>>Ligthen up - there's more to life than newsgroups.
>
>I'll 'lighten up' when one or two here get off my back just because I
>have a few unusual opinions!
>
Brendan, if your opinions were unusual, you would get a lot of respect
from me. The ones that are unusual I support, whether I agree with
them or not. But most of them are rehashes of material presented more
succinctly and accurately.
But I must say that I do admire anyone who takes a sarcastic reference
and makes it his flag of independence.
Peter B.
Religion is something that only secondarily can be taught.
It must primarily be caught.
Ralph Emerson Fosdick
Peter B.
commented:
Point taken, Chrissy.
Peter B.
Religion is something that only secondarily can be taught.
It must primarily be caught.
Ralph Emerson Fosdick
Chrissy
> And yes, I would have liked him to be my grandfather. Actually, the
> one time I met him, he struck me as a person who would have loved to
> do away with copyright and patent law.
You name dropper. Last time I spoke to Liz Windsor she
said she hated name droppers as much as I do.
Chrissy.
Chrissy
<<snip>>
> if your opinions were unusual, you would get a lot of respect
> from me. The ones that are unusual I support, whether I agree with
> them or not. But most of them are rehashes of material presented more
> succinctly and accurately.
That statement is so true and, in my view, the way we should
think. Unfortunately, all too often, original thought is not only
ignored it is actively discouraged.
Chrissy.
mr-p
<Irony Alert>
Peter B.
commented:
Humble Apologies, but it seemed relevant at the time.
mr-p
Heres a cosmic one for brendan :-)
Go on a starlit night,
stand on your head,
leave your feet dangling
outwards into space,
and let the starry
firmament you tread
be, for the moment,
your elected base.
Feel Earth's colossal weight
of ice and granite,
of molten magma,
water, iron, and lead;
and briefly hold
this strangely solid planet
balanced upon
your strangely solid head. --Piet Hein, Grooks II
bt
>bt wrote
>> In my experiance, people who truly know what they are talking about
>> will often stop to correct the other person with clear examples. They
>> make sense quickly and can be applied over a range of scenarios. And
>> they show little to no umbrage, attitude, or frustration. They are
>> intelligent enough to keep ego out of it.
>>
>> That would not be you. Mr 'utter nonsense'.
>
>You do not seem to be keeping ego out of it -
I do not recall any self aggrandisement, over staing of personal
achivements, or otherwise claiming I knew better than others just
because I said so.
>so, aggording to your
>statement, you are not according enough to do this therefore you are
>not in the group of people who truly know what they are talking about.
I may not be, but as you supply no evidence of my burgeoning ego I
cannot credit your opinions seriously.
>> Then there are people who are simply smart. How do you know if you are
>> smart ? Well, one particularly good method is how well you model the
>> world or a given system mentally. If the model is accurate,
>> predicitions based upon it will also be accurate. And you are there
>> fore smart in direct proportion to the accuracy of said predicitions.
>> It's a relative scale.
>>
>> If you are not so smart your predicitions will often go awry. You will
>> constantly be making fix ups at the last moment. Or possibly angry at
>> how the world refuses to follow your own 'good sense'.
>
>Like Leonardo, Einstein ...... ?
Yes.
Leonardo modelled flying machines and such in his mind (later drawing
them); many of these would have actually flown or nearly so if they
had powerful enough engines back then.
Einstein of course modelled the universe in his mind - and wrote it
down in his Special and General theories. He did very well in this.
But the job was easier than for Leonardo, as he had much prior theory
to draw upon and a lot of more modern math and machine to help him.
Still a stunning achivement.
Leonardo was perhaps smarter over all - his genius lay in multiple
areas. Einsteins did not.
bt
>Why should he - he will get no credit for them. ;-)
Of course he would.
>> Profit is the primary result of exploiting a market. Such exploitation
>> is most effective with a monopoly position in that market.
>>
>> Commerce 101.
>
>Try studying the next level - it is
>
>Commerce 102 - Supply and Demand
It does not negate the power of the monopoly. Which is why we have
laws against them.
>> I have repeatedly stated I am not a communist. The only people
>> claiming I am a communist are those I am defeating in debate. I am,
>> apparently, more right-leaning that David Farrar, who works for the
>> National Party.
>
>I believe even David was a little left wing at one time. At least that
>is the view reported when he had a "discussion" with my father.
This was only around six months ago.
bt
>What I don't get is his total apparent inability to see that everything
>has to be free or nothing has to be free.
You should have asked.
>He seems to be trying to
>say that any intellectual input should be free but "real" input should
>be paid for - you pay for the box but not the designing of it.
Basically true.
>BTW - that is not communism - that is just stupidity.
And why is it stupid, pray tell ?
>In his view he is saying the intellectual ones give for
>free and everyone pays for what they get - he has not addressed the
>need to the intellectual ones to get money so they are fed and rested
>enough to continue on their intellectual pursuits.
I have actually.
I think the solution is quite elegant.