The Internet Has Been Effectively Destroyed: SOPA and PIPA was a distraction for ACTA

reply to post by Shadoefax

I don't have Ubuntu any more (need to reinstall it, really), but I don't remember it updating frequently when I had it. The updates were not automatic; perhaps that has changed?

In any case, you're right about the altruistic concept programmers use when they improve or create software for open-source. There's no other reason for them to do so. Luckily, there is a lot of this feeling among software engineers... I am writing a database for my school's remedial math department right now, for no other reason than the chance to do it and to help out.

But here's the catch, and you mentioned it in your post:

Programmers who support open-source development do not include it as part of their business model. They do it for altruistic reasons. I would imagine most of them have a "day job" that keeps them off the welfare rolls.

Imagine for one moment what would happen to that open-source software if there were no other "day jobs". Imagine for one moment that all software was free for the taking. Where would these programmers work in their "day jobs"? Good programming requires education and experience, the former requiring money and the latter requiring time... quite an investment for someone to make if there is no possibility of making a living doing what they have trained themselves to do.

Commercial software allows for people to become programmers, and therefore allows these same people to support open-source software. Were it not for commercial software, there would be precious few programmers, because becoming a programmer would mean entering an occupation that had no possibility of providing a living. Would anyone ever become a doctor if there was no one willing to pay for health care and they had to perform it for free? Would anyone become a lawyer if there were scores of part-time free lawyers in every town?

Of course not. That's why there are so few professional archaeologists; only museums will pay them, pay them poorly usually, and then only for results instead of for labor.

I strongly support open-source software. But supporting warez and piracy supports the collapse of the software industry and the removal of its benefits to society. Everyone has to eat, and as soon as you prevent one industry from profiting, everyone in it will move to another and leave it dead. That's economics and human nature, and nothing you or I or anyone else can do will change that dynamic.

Read my signature: be careful what you ask for.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Hi there. I was writing up a thread and while doing some research on the subject I found this very interesting PDF written by Sean Flynn, a Professorial Lecturer & Associate Director, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, at the American University Washington College of Law.

While this does not specifically address your request to ATS members to read ACTA and make specific comment, it does address the constitutionality of the signing of ACTA by Obama. I found it an interesting read and thought you may as well... or anyone else for that matter.

It was nice to find something something on this written by someone with knowledge of law and the Constitution. Here is the article: The Treaty Is Not A Treaty by Sean Flynn

Here is what is ridiculous: it wasn't just last year the U.S. made us the citizens pay for our T.V. ....cause they were changing systems! We buy the cable boxes and pay astronomical fees for cable that doesn't even try to show me current movies or movies that are at least 1 year old! We the people purchase netflixs and blockbuster to deal with cables shortcomings and get hit with heinous fees and silly games! We go to the movies and spend up $13 dollars per person and get half crap movies same plot different characters!! This is just sad, sick and evil!

The mp3 mania isn't even on my level spend 16 to 20 bucks for a cd, or pay 99 cent to 2 dollars for a song and don't forget about the 300 to 400 dollars for an ipod/mp3 player for what? over 30 bucks for concert tickets! People don't have money to spend on entertainment like they use too! So what if we go online to watch movies.... if THEIR movies or albums made 20 million in the first week !!! My goodness I am gonna do what I need to do to get my fix .... yeah me and all my college friends will go online abroad to watch my movies.... These entertainment moguls make bank every season now they wanna pass bills cause they are losing "money"!

I propose if these idiots in Washington don't cut it out WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD BOYCOTT ALL ENTERTAINMENT and watch 'em cry harder! SMDH ...wah wah its copyright infringement ....shut up they are making 20 million + a week .... that is stealing! maybe the movie and music industry should cover the cable industry? problem solved!! What in the world do these actors, artists, investors, directors and producers do with the money? Rub it in your face cause they just jacked up the prices and don't care that you must pay those inflated prices!

Don't y'all worry I could care less for ACTA; these silly kids don't even know what my generation is up to! I'm gonna keep em in the dark! i got some sites i wanna visit lolz

reply to post by BeforeTheHangmansNoose


No they won't. It's over.

Originally posted by kman420
None of us deserve the internet simply because none of us are willing to really fight for it.

not every fight must be in the light...

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
Even the Twitter has been corrupted.

They have let the corrupt crazy regimes of these tension driven middle east countries intimidate them into denying the people access.

There would have been no "Arab Spring" if the people of those countries didnt have sites like Twitter to communicate and orchestrate protests and revolts.

God help us

believe, it will be better if they have twitter, they will know what they are thinking without hipnosis...

btw... "god"?

reply to post by TheRedneck



I think many of the copyright laws need to be changed. I dont devalue music if I copy it. I add to its value by spreading it. Industry is trying to cling to an outdated method that needs to change in this digital era. Radiohead for example released an album for pay what you like download before it was released in the charts. It made more money before its release than after it. Different methods need to be tested.

Its not really asking people to work for nothing. It does not really dent the music industry. Studies done suggest the music p2p users are some of the music industries best customers.

Same kind of thing with the drug industry where many modern drugs are unavailable to most of the world because they cannot afford them. These drugs can often be copied for pennies but trading laws do not allow it. It is really going to dent industry if these drugs are copied in countries that cannot afford to buy them.

Yes I do repect those that make my world what it is. I also respect all those that have gone before them. We all stand of the shoulders of giants. I find it belittling to live world I live in the companies think they have the right to copyright all human endeavour and the endeavours of life itself in the copyrighting of DNA....

reply to post by purplemer

I have to answer this in two phases:

• If we are discussing the effect piracy has on the value of a person's property, then I disagree. If I create something, it has a value. The potential value to me, as the creator of the something, can be calculated monetarily by multiplying the number of times I sell a copy of it by the profit per copy. How many copies I sell is then dependent on how much people want to own it as well as the price itself.
  
  Now, if it is permissible for people to simply make copies of my creation and give them away, that means I both will be able to sell a smaller number of copies and each of those copies will be worth less because the demand will be lower. Both the number of copies and the value of those copies have decreased, meaning the value to me is greatly reduced. That means I have less incentive to produce things because they are worth less to me, and should their worth become low enough, I will not be able to devote my time to producing them.
  
  Copyright and Patent laws keep that value available to the inventor/creator in order to encourage invention and creation. Take away that protection and you will take away future advances in technology and future entertainment mediums.
  
  That said, there is a case to be made for promoting someone's creation, and that is actually recognized through the Fair Use laws and Creative Commons License. If I show a clip of a movie to someone who then decides to go buy the movie, I have not damaged the value of that movie for the creator, but improved it. If I start giving away copies of the movie, however, I have damaged the value and committed a crime.
  
  In programming, it is understood that a certain number of users will purchase the software legally, some will acquire it illegally at first, but then purchase it when it becomes profitable to them, others will never purchase it, and a few will actually make it available for free to anyone who wants it. The marketing trick is to embrace the first group, allow the second, avoid the third, and prosecute the last. Do a lot of software companies get it wrong? Yep. But they then suffer from a bad PR reputation. Capitalism at work.
  
  
• But when it comes to things such as the human genome, that has not been created in a laboratory. It may have been duplicated, but that is a far cry from creation. In this case, and in similar cases such as drugs which are simply copied form nature instead of created, I will agree wholeheartedly that the laws need to be changed.

TheRedneck