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.
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.
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?
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.
libraries obsolete = librarians obsolete
Re:
You apparently haven't been on the Internet very long.....
Re:
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.
Re:
So you're basically saying artists don't exist.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't legislate or bribe creativity
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.
Reading the patent, it's not sudo but
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.
Re: Re: Re: Can't you make more?
(untitled comment)
Re: This promotes buying?
Re: Re: Re: Freeloaders: Software vs Art
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.
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.
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)
Re:
How much traffic do you think a site would get if no one knew what kind of site it is?
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More comments from Lisa >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Lisa.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt