|
Grex > Music3 > #178: The Eighteenth "Napster" Item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 23 new of 72 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 50 of 72:
| 
May 5 22:37 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:45: Sorry. It's just that 99% of the time when I have this
argument, it *is* with someone who believes "information wants to be
free" and should never be bought or sold, only given away.
|
twenex
|
|
response 51 of 72:
|
May 5 22:52 UTC 2004 |
Which is a valid opinion, like most others.
|
gull
|
|
response 52 of 72:
|
May 5 23:01 UTC 2004 |
I don't think it's a valid opinion, personally. But then, most of the
people I know rely, in some form or other, on intellectual property to
make a living.
|
tod
|
|
response 53 of 72:
|
May 5 23:06 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
twenex
|
|
response 54 of 72:
|
May 5 23:43 UTC 2004 |
<twenex grins>
|
mcnally
|
|
response 55 of 72:
|
May 5 23:44 UTC 2004 |
re #51: By your definition, what would be an example of an invalid opinion?
|
twenex
|
|
response 56 of 72:
|
May 5 23:55 UTC 2004 |
Depends mostly on the mores of the time, I suppose. For example, I suspect
most people nowadays would accept that it's wrong to murder people, or to
commit child rape. Since the vast majority of people in that society agree
on it, then anyone's opinion to the contrary is not valid: we lock people up
who exercise their "right" to rape or murder. Similarly, achievement of
political ends by violent means is also not condoned. Therefore anyone who
professes that it is acceptable is also expressing an "invalid" opinion.
Another way to approach it would be to say that an opinion that is clearly
contrary to established and demonstrable fact is invalid, such as the belief
that the world is fla; or, if it could be proven that 81% of people in the
UK were against the abolition of the monarchy, then to say that 75% of them
are in favour would clearly be "an invalid opinion".
|
marcvh
|
|
response 57 of 72:
|
May 6 00:18 UTC 2004 |
I'd more say that an invalid opinion is one which simply makes no sense,
assumes facts not in evidence, displays unsound reasoning, is
hypocritical, etc.
Valid opinion:
The monarchy should be abolished because it is an antiquated
remnant of divine authority, and is today merely an expensive tradition
and frequent source of embarassment.
Invalid opinions:
The monarchy should be abolished because fish swim.
The monarchy should be abolished because the Queen is a three-headed
space alien attempting to subvert human authority.
The monarchy should be abolished because power, like information, wants
to be free.
|
twenex
|
|
response 58 of 72:
|
May 6 00:24 UTC 2004 |
Re: #57. The first paragraph is a succinct version of #56. I really must try
to be mre to the point.
I'm not at all convinced that the one about the Queen having three heads would
be invaldi, if the Queen did indeed have 3 heads.
Information DOES want to be free, as in "freely available". Assuming "free"
in this context to mean "free of charge" or "at no cost to the consumer, or
profit to the provider, of information", is a common mistake we ALWAYS have
to keep banging on about to drum into people's heads. It's ironic that the
language which arguably displays the greatest propensity of all known
languages to borrow words expressing concepts which it lacks has not yet
borrowed a word to simply and unambigously represent the concept of "free"
as in "freedom", or "at liberty". Spanish and German both have it ("libre"
in the first case, and "frei" in the second, where "no cost" is respectively
"gratis" and "kostenlos").
|
remmers
|
|
response 59 of 72:
|
May 6 12:32 UTC 2004 |
Or as Richard Stallman puts it, there's a distinction between "free
speech" and "free beer".
|
twenex
|
|
response 60 of 72:
|
May 6 13:41 UTC 2004 |
Indeed.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 61 of 72:
|
May 6 15:52 UTC 2004 |
When I saw him speak once, he spent the entire speech digging energetically
for a gold nugget, which was apparently buried deep inside his ass.
|
twenex
|
|
response 62 of 72:
|
May 6 15:55 UTC 2004 |
rotfl.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 63 of 72:
|
May 9 02:50 UTC 2004 |
Information does "want to be free." That's why copyright law was
established in the first place. Property rights subsist only in the
physical copies you own. Nothing in property right prevents somebody
else, who has legitimately acquired a copy, from making their own and
selling them.
But this was clearly unfair to the original author. So this artificial
beastie, copyright law, was invented as a fair compromise. This worked
until the Mickey Mouse Protection Act came along.
I'm equally appalled at the people who say there should be no
copyright - who want to return us to an ugly state of nature - and the
people who want to make copyright a permanent property right - which is
insane. If copyright were permanent, who are the legal heirs of
Cicero? I might want to quote him sometime.
|
twenex
|
|
response 64 of 72:
|
May 9 04:35 UTC 2004 |
Indeedy. Opponents and freeloaders of open source and free software alike
should note that Linux is copyright Linus Torvalds.
|
gregb
|
|
response 65 of 72:
|
May 10 15:12 UTC 2004 |
It it's Open Source, how can they be freeloaders?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 66 of 72:
|
May 10 17:12 UTC 2004 |
re #65:
> [If] it's Open Source, how can they be freeloaders?
"Open source" just means the source is available, not that the software
is free, which is a separate issue. There are companies which charge
for the use of their software but make source available to their customers.
The usual term for software that is free of charge is "free software" but
that's become a politically charged issue because of the efforts of RMS
and the GNU organization, who insist that software labelled "free" software
be not just disributed without charge but also (mostly) unencumbered legally,
(except of course, in the way they prefer..)
|
gull
|
|
response 67 of 72:
|
May 10 19:06 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:65: The license does put certain restrictions on how it can be
used. If you modify the source, package it up in a product, then sell
that product without making the source code available, that counts as
"freeloading" in my mind, because you're violating the license.
Spreading copies around with the source code doesn't, because it's
explicitly allowed by the license agreement.
|
twenex
|
|
response 68 of 72:
|
May 10 21:35 UTC 2004 |
Re: #65. I support either paying for, or making donations (not necessarily
of money, perhaps of time, e.g. to code, or translate documentation) free and
open source software. Those who take without giving /something/ back I
consider freeloaders.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 69 of 72:
|
May 28 19:52 UTC 2004 |
Much that has been said before, but for those who like reading interviews
about how doomed the music business is, this one with David Crosby is
better than average (and Crosby is surprisingly lucid..)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/music/interviews/crosby.ht
ml
|
krj
|
|
response 70 of 72:
|
May 29 04:08 UTC 2004 |
Thanks, Mike! I missed the show, but from the press and BBS discussions
I read about it, it sounds like the David Crosby interview was the
best part.
|
realugly
|
|
response 71 of 72:
|
May 29 04:10 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 72 of 72:
|
May 29 08:26 UTC 2004 |
According to Slashdot you'll be able to view the show on-line in a week
or two, if I remember correctly.
|