Perhaps I should have phrased that better, I meant that they are for the most part unnecessary since the internet can aid distribution in a big way, I didn't mean completely obsolete.
Although, it still would likely mean less funding since there is such a large number of people who can access information online. After all, even those with cheap dial-up could access the books.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't legislate or bribe creativity
Let's not jump to conclusions now, for all we know it could just be some naive kid who wants to believe that his/her favorite artists are super geniuses who manage to magically produce completely original works.
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't legislate or bribe creativity
True artists "roll their own". Remixing lacks creativity. Sort of like slapping a body kit on a car and claiming you built a new car. It's just not true.
*sigh*
When did people adopt such an impossibly idealistic notion of art? Works of art don't just pop up out of thin air, they all have roots in previously created works or nature itself.
The difference is the scarcity isn't forced. with copyright you restrict anyone from making their own copies, here techdirt just isn't making more of them.
"Instead, the term “freeloader” tends to be reserved for people who want to redistribute compiled-only versions of the software, without passing on access to the source, and possibly imposing other additional restrictive conditions as well."
You're being a little loose with the definition of freeloading. Given the premise of the license(that you should have the freedom to use received software as you wish) it would fall under unjustly taking away the freedoms of others and not freeloading.
"The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
It's amazing that people could misinterpret the GPL's purpose when it's stated so clearly.
Copyleft licenses like the GPL are specifically designed to outlaw freeloaders, other Free Software licenses are not.
No, it is designed so you can't turn the modified software into something proprietary, thus taking away the user's freedoms. The source code requirement is merely there to preserve freedoms 1 and 3.(freedom to make changes to the software and freedom to release your modified work, which is more difficult without the source)
You must not of heard about the digg effect, in which aggregators linking a story result in the original site getting far more traffic then they were ever prepared to handle.
How much traffic do you think a site would get if no one knew what kind of site it is?
On the post: Oh No! Nobody Reads! Oh No! It's Too Cheap For Everyone To Read!
Re: Re: libraries obsolete = librarians obsolete
Although, it still would likely mean less funding since there is such a large number of people who can access information online. After all, even those with cheap dial-up could access the books.
On the post: Oh No! Nobody Reads! Oh No! It's Too Cheap For Everyone To Read!
libraries obsolete = librarians obsolete
On the post: New Economics Paper Explains How Shorter Copyright Stimulates More Music
Re:
You apparently haven't been on the Internet very long.....
On the post: New Economics Paper Explains How Shorter Copyright Stimulates More Music
Re:
On the post: New Economics Paper Explains How Shorter Copyright Stimulates More Music
Re:
So in other words, he used already existing ideas in his stories?
Looks like you just admitted he reused material in order to create art. Whoops.
On the post: New Economics Paper Explains How Shorter Copyright Stimulates More Music
Re:
So you're basically saying artists don't exist.
On the post: New Economics Paper Explains How Shorter Copyright Stimulates More Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't legislate or bribe creativity
On the post: New Economics Paper Explains How Shorter Copyright Stimulates More Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't legislate or bribe creativity
*sigh*
When did people adopt such an impossibly idealistic notion of art? Works of art don't just pop up out of thin air, they all have roots in previously created works or nature itself.
On the post: Microsoft Patents Changing User Privileges Temporarily On The Fly
Reading the patent, it's not sudo but
On the post: Zombieland Director Goes After Fans, Doesn't Understand Popularity
Re: Come on Techdirt
Infringement is not theft.
Infringement: New copy is created against the wishes of the copyright holder.
Theft: Copy is taken from the owner without permission, thus no longer has it.
On the post: DMCA Takedown Shirt Only Available For A Few More Days
Re: Re: Re: Can't you make more?
On the post: Convicted German Murderer Wants His Conviction Erased From Wikipedia
On the post: MPAA Gets Town To Turn Off Free Muni-WiFi Over Single Unauthorized Movie Download
Re: This promotes buying?
On the post: Compare And Contrast: How GPL Enforces Violations vs. How RIAA/MPAA/BSA Enforce Violations
Re: Re: Re: Freeloaders: Software vs Art
On the post: Compare And Contrast: How GPL Enforces Violations vs. How RIAA/MPAA/BSA Enforce Violations
Re: Re: Freeloaders: Software vs Art
You're being a little loose with the definition of freeloading. Given the premise of the license(that you should have the freedom to use received software as you wish) it would fall under unjustly taking away the freedoms of others and not freeloading.
On the post: Compare And Contrast: How GPL Enforces Violations vs. How RIAA/MPAA/BSA Enforce Violations
Re: Re: Re: Freeloaders: Software vs Art
"The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
It's amazing that people could misinterpret the GPL's purpose when it's stated so clearly.
On the post: Compare And Contrast: How GPL Enforces Violations vs. How RIAA/MPAA/BSA Enforce Violations
Re: Re: Freeloaders: Software vs Art
No, it is designed so you can't turn the modified software into something proprietary, thus taking away the user's freedoms. The source code requirement is merely there to preserve freedoms 1 and 3.(freedom to make changes to the software and freedom to release your modified work, which is more difficult without the source)
On the post: Murdoch Says Fair Use Can Be Barred By Courts; Will Probably Remove Sites From Google
Re:
How much traffic do you think a site would get if no one knew what kind of site it is?
On the post: Murdoch Says Fair Use Can Be Barred By Courts; Will Probably Remove Sites From Google
On the post: Danish Anti-Piracy Group Withdraws All Its Lawsuits Against Individuals (After Losing Most Anyway)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>