Are we against works for hire now? I don't like how public school teachers and adjunct professors are paid to develop curricula and lesson plans for one year, and then are no longer needed because the schools can take their work. But as much as I dislike it, that is a contractual thing.
I think the problem they are trying to solve is, they can't tell by looking at bit streams which content is free and which content they can charge and/or deliver three strikes for. If no one can share CC content, everything you download and don't pay for is illegal. Therefore, they want to outlaw free.
I would understand your point if it was someone else putting your work online, but it was the people you worked for who did it, for marketing purposes.
This news isn't particularly earth-shattering. Users made files available for copying by the public, from their own computers. The number of people who may have downloaded copied from them is irrelevant. The fact that they were unaware of their computer's operations is irrelevant. The fact that this may increase the number of torrent leeches and decrease seeders is irrelevant.
I do hope this was only one strike for them. It would be unfair for strikes two and three to rack up in quick succession before the first one was adjudicated.
Speaking as a supporter of open source software, and also as someone who has used the technology in 2008, 2010, and 2012 I can say a lot of this is off base. The Democrats enjoy a numerical advantage that has often been stymied through lack of organization. This system helps the Democrats use their numerical advantage. Why would they give away a major advantage for a bunch of iffy paybacks?
It basically makes the technology useless. As one of the techies who worked on the project notes, the software "will be mothballed," meaning that four years from now it'll be useless. What the politicians see as keeping an advantage is really just squandering a useful framework.
Actually it has gotten much stronger through continual improvement. In 2008 the system crashed. In 2012 the servers were much more robust. In 2012, the mobile app became usable.
It completely misunderstands how technology advances and works. No one expects software from today to be the same four years from now. By mothballing the tech, it will mean that the next campaign will effectively be starting from scratch. Open sourcing it would allow additional work to continue on this.
They have lots of funds to improve on it themselves.
You can learn from others as well. The really shortsighted part is this insistence that open sourcing it "helps the other side." Again, what will be used four years (or even two years) from now will be quite different as the technology advances. And having it open sourced means that lots of folks can jump in and build on the tech in the meantime. And, yes, even Republican techies might work on it, and the Dems can learn from them as well.
That's a very weak advantage to be gained from giving away the store.
Keeping it closed pisses off the techies, who will be less likely to contribute or join the team next time around.
If the Democrats believe they have stronger technologists, then next election they should still be able to make innovations faster than their opponents.
The Democrats have plenty of funds to pay techies good salaries to keep development moving.
It quite possibly violates some open source licenses, since much of the code was built on open source software, some of which requires any additional work to also be open sourced.
Open source licenses do not require you to give away your improvements.
Keeping the tech secret also means that other campaigns (beyond just elections) can't make use of the technology as well, which could actually hurt causes that the Democrats support.
It is available to other Democratic campaigns, for a fee.
I've said before the best thing you could do here with comments is make all responses to a flagged comment hidden or not hidden together with the flagged comment, because we all know the responses to a troll are part of the troll's plan.
On the post: Misheard Will Smith Lyrics Results In Arrest Of Student And District-Wide Lockdown
On the post: Hollywood Accounting Strikes Again: Universal Sued For Screwing Over Its Own Sister Company
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: FCC Might Investigate Whether Or Not Ban On Cell Phone Unlocking Should Have Been Allowed
On the post: Maryland Lawmaker Introduces Bill To Bar Schools From Claiming Copyright On Student & Faculty Work
On the post: A Merger Challenge Not Worth Rating: The DOJ's Misguided Suit Against A Paltry Software Merger
On the post: French Politicians Worry That Free Creative Commons Works Devalue 'Legal' Offers
On the post: Copyright Strikes Again: 'Real Calvin And Hobbes' Shut Down By Copyright Claim
On the post: Georgia Lawmaker Claims 'Making Fun Of Someone' Isn't Protected Speech; Seeks To Outlaw Vulgar Photoshopping
Re:
On the post: Film Distributor Convinced Oscar Nominees To Take Down Their Own Short Films, Because No Real Film Would Be Online
Re: Two points
On the post: Early Lessons From New Zealand's 'Three Strikes' Punishments
I do hope this was only one strike for them. It would be unfair for strikes two and three to rack up in quick succession before the first one was adjudicated.
On the post: Digital Copyright Principles, According To The Davos Set
Clearly the answer is to regulate hands!
On the post: IP Address Snapshots Not Sufficient Evidence To File Infringement Suit; Prenda Lawyer Faces Sanctions
On the post: Campaign Launched To Stop School From Claiming Copyright On Student Work
On the post: UK Thankfully Rejects Plans For New IP Czar With Mandate To 'Increase, Protect & Enforce'
On the post: Human Rights Lawyer Explains Why He's Working For Kim Dotcom: Exposing American Corruption
On the post: Alan Cooper Sues John Steele, Prenda Law And The Shell Companies He Supposedly 'Runs'
On the post: OXO Shows The Right Way To Respond To Bogus 'Outrage' Over 'Copied' Product
Re: Patent Trolls
On the post: OXO Shows The Right Way To Respond To Bogus 'Outrage' Over 'Copied' Product
On the post: Obama's Techies Want To Open Source Their Work, But Politicians Want To Keep It Secret
It basically makes the technology useless. As one of the techies who worked on the project notes, the software "will be mothballed," meaning that four years from now it'll be useless. What the politicians see as keeping an advantage is really just squandering a useful framework.
Actually it has gotten much stronger through continual improvement. In 2008 the system crashed. In 2012 the servers were much more robust. In 2012, the mobile app became usable.
It completely misunderstands how technology advances and works. No one expects software from today to be the same four years from now. By mothballing the tech, it will mean that the next campaign will effectively be starting from scratch. Open sourcing it would allow additional work to continue on this.
They have lots of funds to improve on it themselves.
You can learn from others as well. The really shortsighted part is this insistence that open sourcing it "helps the other side." Again, what will be used four years (or even two years) from now will be quite different as the technology advances. And having it open sourced means that lots of folks can jump in and build on the tech in the meantime. And, yes, even Republican techies might work on it, and the Dems can learn from them as well.
That's a very weak advantage to be gained from giving away the store.
Keeping it closed pisses off the techies, who will be less likely to contribute or join the team next time around.
If the Democrats believe they have stronger technologists, then next election they should still be able to make innovations faster than their opponents.
The Democrats have plenty of funds to pay techies good salaries to keep development moving.
It quite possibly violates some open source licenses, since much of the code was built on open source software, some of which requires any additional work to also be open sourced.
Open source licenses do not require you to give away your improvements.
Keeping the tech secret also means that other campaigns (beyond just elections) can't make use of the technology as well, which could actually hurt causes that the Democrats support.
It is available to other Democratic campaigns, for a fee.
On the post: TechCrunch Admits That Using Facebook Comments Drove Away Most Of Their Commenters
Next >>