Gates Elaborates on IP Communists 795
justin_w_hall writes "In part four of his interview with Gizmodo, big Bill Gates discusses his recent 'communist' labeling of supporters of free culture - and gets into detail about his rationale concerning Microsoft's position on DRM. Other parts of the interview: part 1, part 2, part 3."
Here it is (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here it is (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here it is (Score:5, Insightful)
He wants to justify using DRM in music because its used for medical technologies. He's screwing up the point on purpose -- just because the OS knows about DRM for medical records doesn't mean MS has to acknowledge those "same bits" on music files at all.
If the laws in my country (Canada) allow me to make copies of the file, Windows had better let me.
Let me expound on that -- I work with a church [kawarthachurch.com] that frequently uses short video clips to back up or emphasize a point; several clips were used from Shrek when discussing relationships, etc.
Under CCLI rules, we're allowed to use those clips without specific permission, during service time. However, to rip those clips, we need to use software that falls on the "hey, that's bad" side of Copyright regulations. Luckily, we don't have a DMCA in Canada.
Re:Here it is (Score:3, Insightful)
We didn't put the DRM on the content, the provider did, what we are doing is providing the way to get to the content.
Microsoft didn't put the DRM on your Shrek video, but they did give you the software to get at it.
Re:Here it is (Score:4, Insightful)
We didn't put the DRM on the content, the provider did, what we are doing is providing the way to get to the content.
Microsoft didn't put the DRM on your Shrek video, but they did give you the software to get at it.
That is totally Mr. Gates' point and I think he makes it well. I don't love his company or his business practices, however I agree with him here. He is not putting the DRM on the content. He is not suing people for getting around it. He is simply implementing the tool.
Re:Here it is (Score:4, Insightful)
Ya, I know I can rip DVD's using DVDShrink. However, would that have been possible if someone hadn't cracked the CSS on the disks? Do you think that the authors of the DVDShrink program recieved a license from the controlling organization of that system in order to distribute, for free, a program that lets you rip movies from an encrypted disk? Do you think the movie industry wants to let you backup your disks, or do you think they'd rather have you destroy/rebuy the movie every time something bad happens?
Perhaps I'm not thinking of the program you're refering to. Maybe we're talking about the Movie Maker program in XP? Didn't think that one would let you sample a DVD for inclusion in another presentation, but I haven't tried. How about something else?
For what it's worth, it's my belief that such programs as DVDShrink violate the DMCA as they break the encryption that is intended to protect the content. Frankly, I don't care as I see the DMCA as an overreaching law that forbids fair use and blocks content that is encrypted from ever being brought into the public domain (how can you get it out if cracking the encryption is a crime?). That's another argument, though.
No, Microsoft didn't tell the member of the MPAA that they needed to use CSS encoded DVDs to distribute such movies as Shrek. However, they did their part in implimenting that standard. As I understand, they are also seeking to encourage the music industry right now that the WMA format with it's DRM (a feature available before the content is encoded in it) is a secure way to distribute their content. Know what that means? Microsoft is leading that push, not the content creators.
Microsoft certainly cannot encourage companies that it's implimentation of DRM is safe and effective if they provide programs that enable fair use (which they don't). It sure would be nice if they would, but I won't hold my breath waiting for the computer industry and the content industry to come to an agreement regarding the proper implimentation of the conflicting notions of software-enforced copyright protection and fair use.
Gates' Problem (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to understand how the proprietary software market works, and why it is fundamentally impossible for a small player to compete with MS, IBM, Oracle, etc. in this environment to under
Re:Here it is (Score:5, Interesting)
The DMCA lets producers shut down that right, and Bill's company is doing as they bid and enabling them to stop Fair Use.
WE are the customers too. He's enabled a runaround of copyright law. In my favorite phrase, "they broke the deal". Copyright for a certain term for them, accompanied by Fair Use for us. Now there is no term, and we can't use our Fair Use rights without breaking a sneaky little law. They broke the deal, not us.
They don't like Fair Use? Fine, we don't like copyright. Game on.
Re:Here it is (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that Bill Gates was drawing a line and saying in effect "This is a group I am not aligned with. I do many things for many people, but I
Re:Here it is (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose next you are going to tell me that ESR is a communist as well?
All of this keeps reminding me of Gandhi. In colonial India, there was a salt monopoly granted by the British government. It was basically indirect taxation and a mockery of market capital
So what is he? (Score:3, Insightful)
Boy does that make an interesting job title.
?Tzar of Intelectual Property?
Re:So what is he? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what is he? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So what is he? (Score:4, Informative)
- Marx
A lovely bit of reasoning which can be used to extend the period of centrally-controlled everything for as long as the revolutionaries see fit. In the Communist states to date, this seems to have been a period that lasted decades, and thus far has only ended because folks found out just how bad central planning could screw up a state's economy (except in Cuba, where apparently the central authority still believes all the bullshit).
Re:So what is he? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you attempt to replace that, you only end up creating new kinds of wealth to accumulate, new social strata to which the ambitious will strive.
The industrialized world has worked out a basically mixed system with social safety nets to (theoretically) catch the most vulnerable members of society, without trying to make wealth accumulation some sort of wicked vice. It's far less than perfect, but then again, to expect perfection, to even theorize it, is just plain silly. Any economic theory that ignores our basic nature is doomed to either quick failure or to be taken over by people of less-than-pure motives.
Quite frankly I simply don't buy into the class struggle nonsense. I don't have any jealousy of Gates' billions, I just want a legal system that can clamp down on his gaining it via shady means. I don't want to pick the Rockefellers' pockets, but I think as a society we can do more to help those in economically vulnerable positions. But I don't think that means throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I see nothing in Communism that is so desirable that I should see it as a reasonable alternative to a mixture of free market capitalism and socialistic safety nets.
Re:So what is he? (Score:3, Insightful)
> scientific theory, which carries a lot more weight
> than the common man's definition of "theory."
> Presenting it as just some unproven concept is
> absurd.
And reflects the core problem with science education in much of the Western world, as Joe Average doesn't even seem to know what is meant by the term "scientific theory" and is thus easily duped by what should be obvious Fundementalist Christian stunts like placing such stickers on textbooks.
>
Re:So what is he? (Score:2)
Re:So what is he? (Score:3, Insightful)
Communist states in practice create dictatorships. That's an historical fact that goes beyond being simple propaganda.
Re:So what is he? (Score:5, Insightful)
the pre-conditions for communism to arise are not met. there is not a surplus of necessities. we simply can not feed/cloth/house everyone. scarcity still exists, and as such, communism is an inefficient economic system.
and thats another point - communism is an economic system, not political.
Re:So what is he? (Score:3, Insightful)
the pre-conditions for communism to arise are not met. there is not a surplus of necessities. we simply can not feed/cloth/house everyone. scarcity still exists, and as such, communism is an inefficient economic system.
I'm not sure that this is a given. Much of the scarcity in the U.S. is artificial. We pay farmers not to grow crops. Much of can also be attributed to inefficient distribution of resources. 20% of the wealth is in the hands of 1% of the populace. If the world were to devote it's resourc
Re:So what is he? (Score:5, Informative)
It has been demonstrated, in many different countries, that Capitalism and Totalitarianism/Fascism/Monarchies can go hand in hand.
Why then, is communism limited to only totalitarian regimes?
If the majority in a democracy vote for a communst-style economic plan, why is this less feasible than creating laws to respect capitalistic rights?
To go further: The USSR was not a communistic economy, it was a centrally-planned economy, under a totalitarian government.
The US, during WW2, was a centrally planned economy, under a democratic government.
I see no coupling of economic and political systems.
Microsoft song (Score:3, Funny)
Who's the leader of the gang who's stolen our PC?
M-I-C-R-O-S - opps! OH NO! - F - T!
Mickey Mouse! Microsoft!
Mickey Mouse! Microsoft!
The richest man who ever lived is calling you a thief,
M-I-C-R-O-S - 'opps! OH NO!' - F - T!
Where's my file?
Microsoft!
All my work?
Microsoft!
Could there ever be an end to all this needless grief?
M-I-C-R-O-S - 'opps! OH NO!' - F - T!
I use this an anger-management mantra whenever I get DASPO'ed (being driven into a state mouth-foam
I for one... (Score:5, Funny)
And now the joke can die in peace. (Score:5, Funny)
No use of it after today will ever be as fit, amusing or appropriate. Anyone else who uses the joke will remind readers of this instance of it, and they'll think "Yea, but it's still lame and stale compared to Kjuib's masterful use of the gag."
Re:And now the joke can die in peace. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I for one... (Score:2)
Re:I for one... (Score:2)
Re:I for one... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
RE: Required response. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a refreshing contrast to the fascist model, where the state owns the code. In this case, the writers own the code.
If he says Linus is Stallin/lennin/marx, then he's Hitler by the same set of parameters.
Re: Required response. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are a communist. To the average american this means you belong in jail. That's what he is after.
Re: Required response. (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, most political discourse is on this level. We all have little clusters of neurons in our brains that encode concepts like "communism", "terrorism", "family", "God", "liberal", etc., and much of politics is the process of getting people to connect them to other little clusters like "Good" and "Evil". There is no requirement that this process be rational. Once those trigger words are properly linked, one can then use them to attack other ideas that may or may not even be related.
Back when the Soviet Union collapsed, and as China was becoming a major trading partner and thereby transitioning from "evil" to "OK", I wondered what bogeyman we would come up with to replace "communism". Up through Reagan, it was always an election issue who was going to be "tough on communism". It's not hard to see what the new replacement is!
Re: Required response. (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, as an outspoken communist I NEED to slap you around a bit.
NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER Put Stalin in the same grouping as Lenin and Marx. EVER. Any true Communist is very outspoken about how much Stalin was not a communist (under Lenin's, Marx's, Trotski's, or anyone else even remotely credible's definition)
A MUCH more appropriate comment would have literally been:
If he says Linus is Lenin/Marx/etc. then he's Stalin by the same set of parameters.
Any time a topic like this comes up, I feel the need to somehow explain to people that Open Source IS a very Communist idea, and that's exactly why it's so great.
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
Seems to kind of summarize the Open Source ideology, right? The people that can code, should. The people that can make graphics, should. The people that can only use the system and bitch when it breaks, should. And if everyone does this, everyone should get what they need out of it.
The quote is from Marx.
Think twice about saying that OSS isn't a very communist ideal, because it is.
Sorry, this turned from a reply into a rant in about 2 minutes.
Re:No (Score:2)
Re: Required response. (Score:3, Informative)
No. Poor boy, you've been indoctrinated by American propaganda. In a true Communist state, as defined by Marx, the people own the code. Period. The states of Russia and China, which fit the model you describe, were never Communist. They were only "Communist"... ie, totalitarianism wrapped up with a prettier name.
Fascism has to do with totalitarianism and suppression of rights, not
Re: Required response. (Score:3, Interesting)
LOL. Think so? I am fairly sure I know much more about Communism than you and it has nothing to do with *American* propaganda...
In a true Communist state, as defined by Marx, the people own the code. Period.
Techincally speaking you're wrong on at least two counts. First, under Communism as described by Marx there would be no state at all. So talking about a "Communist state" is nonsense by definition. Second, under Communism (again, as describ
Artists should be paid (Score:3, Insightful)
Rule of thumb, if the artist is deceased the songs should be automatically free. None of this 2pac-after-death-release bullshit. He's dead how does he make music?!
Gates and these millionaires never talk enough about these things. They mention artists should be paid. Blah, now back to DRM.
Re:Artists should be paid (Score:2)
Re:Artists should be paid (Score:2)
Also, even if the dead artist didn't sign over their copyright, it would still not be free. The copyright would belong to their estate, which is where it should be for the duration of the copyright.....althou
Re:Artists should be paid (Score:2)
Re:Artists should be paid (Score:2)
Changes to the law within our lifetime has made copyrights last until death + 99 years.
And although the record company will continue to make money, who ever inherits 2pac's estate should be getting the royalties from his work, unless he signed some bad contracts that would automatically release all of his work to his label in the event of his death.
I
Re:Artists should be paid (Score:3, Interesting)
On the whole, I agree with you... the protections should be shorter - maybe (artist's life + 20) or 50 years (whichever comes first). I would also like to see shorter peri
Re:Artists should be paid (Score:3, Insightful)
Rule of thumb, if the artist is deceased the songs should be automatically free. None of this 2pac-after-death-release bullshit. He's dead how does he make music?!
I'm not at all defending the rip-off contracts, but you are forgetting that various people may have fronted/loaned the artist money. At the time of death that money may not have
Gates' Elaboration (Score:5, Funny)
Wanting to get paid for work you did (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be a bit more reasonable to put a time limiting factor on the copyright of songs ... after 20 years the song goes to the public domain, so that everyone can enjoy that music.
Re:Wanting to get paid for work you did (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wanting to get paid for work you did (Score:4, Insightful)
> on the copyright of songs
> domain, so that everyone can enjoy that music.
Um, that's how copyrights were supposed to work, but since the US Congress decided to essentially violate the Constitution by simply extending copyrights indefinitely to protect Mickey Mouse, and no court has seen fit to call them on it, that notion of a limited protection is now apparently extinct.
Re:Wanting to get paid for work you did (Score:4, Informative)
And then Disney came along. Walt died a long time ago, and as per the old laws, Mickey, Goofy and Minnie would have been in the public domain in 1986 (20 years after Walt died). But the Disney company has gotten the laws extended time and again, so that they are death + 70years now.
Re:Wanting to get paid for work you did (Score:3, Informative)
Try again. The original copyright terms in the United States were fourteen years, renewable once for an additional fourteen (but they had to be actively renewed).
They were not "death + x years".
See Creative Commons [creativecommons.org].
But I don't want a Microsoft legal system (tm) (Score:3, Insightful)
I also don't have much of an issue with artists being compensated somehow for their work. There are already laws to govern that, although some of the laws are bad, people often break those laws, and the legal system hasn't yet caught up with how best to deal with it.
The problem here is that Microsoft has taken things upon itself to become
grain of salt (Score:4, Informative)
Take, like, putting soundtracks onto movies using our movie editor thing. If you have unprotected music you can take slideshows, put music to it, encapsulate it in the file, mail it aroundit works perfectly.
Why he's a regular guy next door!
Is it just me or is there something a little fishy [nickdenton.org] about this interview?
Musicians in China (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Musicians in China (Score:2)
Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that the creators of the music were not compensated for their work; however, performers may have been.
(This is based on a very short historical review of Chinese music and could be way off
Re:Musicians in China (Score:2)
If you allow the musicians to retain control over his work, then the person who wrote it will be the one who controls who profits from it.
(See parent comment for gener
Re:Musicians in China (Score:2)
Re:Musicians in China (Score:3, Interesting)
Not exactly. Gates' argument is that the musicians in communist China had no property rights in their creations and thus had no incentive to create something good.
They did get paid -- if they had an offici
Re:Musicians in China (Score:3, Insightful)
Gates is still out to lunch. I do believe that musicians such as Mozart, Shopin, etc, actually made music without any copyright protections at all! Imagine! The greatest music in the world that has lasted through the ages and not a single bit of it had copyright protection nor DRM. These artists didn't starve either. Imagine that Gates, you candyassed greedy snotnosed bastard.
Re:Musicians in China (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Musicians in China (Score:3, Insightful)
He is calling you a communist because he knows how the average american will react to that. To the average american communist means evil and harmful. If your neighbor was a communist you would move or burn his house down. If your kid is hanging around with communists you ground him.
To the average american communists belong in jail or ought
Bill Gates, music agent for the beleaguered (Score:4, Insightful)
Poor Bill. He can't sleep at night thinking of impoverished Chinese musicians -- so he unleashes the Business Software Alliance to coerce entire nations to pony up more cash for Windows, all in the name of intellectual property. A regular advocate for the little guy, he is...
Open Source in fact more capitalistic (Score:5, Insightful)
In a regular corporation, much of the capital becomes wealth distributed to executives who put it into their yacht fund, which in essence is punishing shareholders who are better served by reinvestment in the firm.
The same can be said for many industries. I think Americans underestimate, for example, how much of their healthcare spending goes into executive compensation, which is worse in that industry than most others. It makes you wonder how efficient capitalism really is in the endgame when most competitors have been washed out and locked out of the market.
Let me get this straight... (Score:3, Funny)
This also attacks Linux communities as well. Not to mention anything at SourceForge.net... They are launching another verbal/media assault on open-source software because open-source is dangerous to closed-source software.
With the wealth of open-source software out there, not even great, free democracies (like Microsoft) can stop the spread of communist open-source software Mwahahahaha!
Why would he do this? (Score:4, Insightful)
And to Gizmodo? I'm surprised he even bothers to answer their phone calls at all!
Is he "smarter than that"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why would he do this? (Score:2)
Re:Why would he do this? (Score:3, Insightful)
He knows exactly what he's doing. It's the same thing that conservatives have successfully done with words like "liberal" and "terrorism". You may not really understand what they are, but you know they're bad, and you know that anything they're stuck to must be bad, as well.
Xbox love? (Score:4, Funny)
"Obviously, we'll connect Xbox Love up to what we do with Messenger"
I am intrigued.
Re:Xbox love? (Score:2)
Now you can buy "Backdoor Sluts 9: The Video Game." Although I hear it's not much more than tapping 'A' a lot as quickly as you can.
The problem with Communism... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The problem with Communism... (Score:3, Insightful)
So in the end it's ok to call China Communist.
Re:The problem with Communism... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, what utter load of ... Gates (Score:4, Insightful)
Gates View of OpenSource (Score:2, Interesting)
If he had a few more neurons, perhaps he would equate OpenSource to political Anarchy, because that's what it really is. Grass roots freedom of DEVELOPERS to code without
Gates The Spinner (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that stood out to me in the article was how billie seems to think people have no other incentive in innovating than profit. True innovators innovate for the challenge and because that's just what they LIKE doing. Profiting from it is just a side effect.
The part 3 interview, which is about XBox and everything evolving around that, has a bit of unintended humor in the first answer where Bill Gates appears to be championing for user choice and competition between vendors. Wow!
Re:Gates The Spinner (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, being a few weeks away from my PhD (knock on wood) I'm reminded of the graphs of how university grades correlate with income. It's a rising curve up till just under the top when there's a sharp (or at least distinct) drop. Why? Because the people with the very highest grades can get admitted to graduate school and have a career in research instead of industry. All the while knowing they'll earn less money. Many of these people choose to.
Myself, I cut my salary by about a third going back to finish my PhD. Under Bill's model, that couldn't be done, while in actual fact it's not all that uncommon. I want to be able to do what I want to do, and make as much as I can doing it, obviously, but not to the deteriment of enjoying doing it. (And, no, I wont ever make back the money lost.)
There's a lot more to life than money and there's a lot of smart people out there who don't make as much money as they can because of choice.
Same old Bill (Score:4, Insightful)
His argument is the same as it always is: If you don't give me your money, you won't be able to do what you want. It's hard to pull that out of that rambling BS piece, but the argument is there. In a nutshell it is, you must accept my DRM or "authors" (I think he really means big media publishers) won't let you have their content. In this case he further's his argument by telling you that you never had the rights you thought you did if the "author" decides you don't have it. Once again, he pretends he wishes to reward others for their work. As usual, he tries to shore it all up with insults, "communist" this time but he's always called his customers "theives". You can see the same arguments from him all the way back in 1976 [blinkenlights.com]
The key quotes are:
What we want is to have as much content as possible available. ... an envelope ... in order to get authors to be willing to put an ever broader range of content on our platform ... there's content that can only be there if it's rights protected ...
DRM is just like a speed bump that reminds you whether you're staying within the scope of rights that you have or you don't.
This is an astoundingly dishonest position at every level. The fact of the mater is that authors ARE putting their work up on the Creative Commons for everyone to use without restrictions. They don't want Mr. Gate's "protection". They want to compete on their merits and publish in a normal, and easy to use way. Surely, authors have enough sense to know that the control they pass onto big publishers through DRM will be lost to them forever. Right now the RIAA can threaten to keep your work off air and out of stores. Can you imagine the power music publisher would have if they could throw a few bits in their database and prevent your music from working anywhere? Not even the big publisher's believe that they will remain in control of their rights if they lend Microsoft their trust.
Mr. Gates and his DRM scheme are not "enablers" of any sort. His and big media's expansion of copyright and other forms of government granted exclusive franchises are the reason we have more consolidated and stagnant media than ever. When you give your money to this man, you hurt your rights in every way. If you use his software, he owns your system. Now he wants to own your media too. No thanks, I do just fine without him or his software.
Is it me? (Score:2)
Re:Is it me? (Score:2)
Just bits, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but here is lies the classic folly. Currently, people have to decide if what they are doing is within the realms of fair use, such as copying a page from a book so they can cut out a favorite paragraph from the book and read it at presentation. DRM says that a machine has to decide if what I'm doing constitutes fair use. What happens when the computer doesn't understand my situation? Like with smart guns, if I'm wrestling with a criminal for their weapon and I manage to get it away from them, I won't be able to use it to defend myself! It's not just managing bits anymore Bill, it's managing our lives.
Re:Just bits, huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, that's not the law. The Fair Use doctrine (which is technically not a law, but a series of court precedents) allows for certain acceptable uses of copyrighted works. If I'm writing a review of a book, I can quote brief passages of that book. If I'm conducting a film class, I can use snippets of films to demonstrate my points. Derivitive works have certain rights... there's plenty more examples.
The original poster's point (as I understand it) was that in a DRM world, the content producer specifies something 'copies of this cannot be made. PERIOD.' This disregards the above mentioned situations with no regard to context (since computers cannot inherently understand context). While there are certainly more cases where it provents illegal use, it also prevents limited legal uses. It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Re:Just bits, huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the law, if you don't like it, tough shit.
The law is wrong. It is as wrong as not letting women and blacks vote. It is as wrong as imprisoning people whose ancestors are from a country you are at war with. I will not obey it. If you don't like it, tough shit.
So whats wrong with a communist (Score:2, Insightful)
People have no clue what it means and use it as a slam. Guess 50 years of govt brainwashing worked.
Ok... (Score:2, Flamebait)
"... I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist."
In the part 4 above, he says:
"All I was saying is that the number of people
Is there a need... (Score:2)
I want to have a nice friday, so I'll skip this.
Rationale for DRM (Score:2, Funny)
\$$$$$$$$$$/
\$$$$$$$$/
\$$$$$$/
\$$$$/
\$$/
| |
MicroSoft
Can be summed with: Cha-Ching!
And now to blather on to satisfy the lameness filter, and get
ANSWER THE QUESTION MR. TORVALDS!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Gates Misses the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe many artists make art to add beauty to the world, and that they desire an audience, not money.
I believe that there are many artists willing to share their creative work for free, and they are compensated by the attention they get. I believe that the market is starting to demand this art. One of the great thing about this art, as with free software, is that it can be extended, collaborated with, and changed far beyond the scope of the original art. Perhaps this art isn't as good as commercial art, or as polished, but it has great advantages, the biggest one being that it is free.
Finally, having been a successful shareware author, I can say that people are very generous if you ask them for support. I could have never distributed my software through traditional channels, and would have never made any money even if I could have, but was quite successful freely distributing my work, and only asking for payment in the about box.
It is ironic that Bill Gates doesn't understand this. His operating system has started this revolution, that has removed the cost of distribution. What we are seeing now is a natural evolution of the personal computer.
It's not about artists getting paid (Score:3, Interesting)
What it's about is squeezing a few extra bucks out of everyone by removing their ability to listen/read/watch ANYTHING without paying for it. Because the media companies just can't STAND it when someone "uses" their product without giving them money.
The whole plan boils down to this: No information will be free, ever. The libraries know this, as they've already been fighting for survival in the new world of "intellectual property" and "digital rights".
Speedbumps? Roadblocks? (Score:3, Funny)
Cannot possibly be communism! (Score:3, Interesting)
OSS encourages individuals to trade directly with each other. VS Communism makes person to person trade a crime against the state, and labels it economic sabotage.
OSS actually works, and the technically best software gets the most users. VS Communism gives you products like the Trabant and makes you wait 12 years for delivery.
OSS is a choice, you are free to reject it without penalty. VS Communism is enforced by the barrel of a gun, dissidents get killed.
OSS has not caused the death of anyone. VS 100 million people have been killed by Communist regimes.
Some will argue that this is not "real, genuine" communism. Bullshit. Every case of communism in practice has been a poverty-laden murder-fest. Whining about how this is not "real" communism is astroturfing of the most foul sort.
Did communism get the first dog into space? Yes!
Did the dog ever make it back alive? You Capitalist pig dog traitor! How dare you even ask the question! (Actual answer is no. They didn't care about the life of the dog, they cared about the glory of Communism.)
If anything represents the output of Communism in the real software world, it is Windows. Poor quality, trade in it between individuals is forbiden, product is forced on the user by the OEM.
Sure OSS represents communism (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft, on the other hand, represents the "Central planning enforced via coercion from an unaccountable monopoly" aspect of communism.
If Gates & co. are going to try and keep the communism analogy alive, this more precise view ought to be brought up to reporters at every opportunity. I can't speak for everyone, but I know all my negative associations with Communism come from its relation to totalitarianism, not its relation to sharing.
Gates is a communist (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows is built with a huge bunch of command line tools and perl scripts. There's not much difference between the philosphies and characters of Windows Developers and Free Software Developers -- except one: Windows people don't want *you* to have the rights *they* have.
The Reason Programmers Turn Commie (Score:5, Interesting)
Programmers write free software to subvert a system that denies them the protection of their intellectual property rights by pricing legal defense of those rights out of their reach. That guys like Gates would be unsympathetic to this cruel dilemma facing the vast majority of programmers is not surprising. Indeed, given the fact that even giving all his wealth away, except some "modest" estate for his children, his childre will still be able to afford good legal counsel to establish protection for themselves.
If programmers were able to capture enough of the value of what they write to pay for the legal defense of their rights they'd probably write a lot less free software.
This gets to a fundamental problem with the incentives created by taxing things other than asset value (exempting house and tools of the trade which are subsistence assets protected by bankruptcy tradition):
Possession is rewarded over creation.
Think about it: Once you possess something, you basically have no tax burden. You enjoy the benefits of young men dutifully going out to die in wars, government subsidized infrastructure paid by wage earners, the entire legal edifice describing and protecting your rights and without you having to pay a cent. You can just soak the public for these benefits by paying only the lawyers fees to extract the benefits for yourself.
Taxing everything but possession (income, capital gains, sales, value added, etc) is just a way to tax the creative process.
Naturally, creators who are trying to get a leg up on the situation end up selling their creations cheap to those whose possession is subsidized by the tax payments of the creators.
Well, there is one exception to this rule of no taxation of possession -- and that is the patent maintanence fee. Patents are the only assets that the government taxes. This is an incredibly regressive tax hitting hardest those who are earliest to support the realization of a new technology's value -- forcing them to sell their rights ("assign") cheap to someone who has been sitting around enjying the government's protection.
It all adds up to a very nasty way of sucking capital out of the hands of creators and giving over to the hands of possessors.
So the creators, unable to change the tax laws to tax assets rather than creative processes (becuse they can't buy the Ways and Means Committee) become socialists.
This is directly related to the issue of outsourcing since if programmers who had created the value of the information industry had been allowed to retain the value they created, they wouldn't need jobs. The corporations would be paying them royalties or be paying companies owned by the programmers for the rights to their software instead of just throwing creators out on the street after extracting their youth and creativity.
A system that would work would elimnate all existing taxes (although not necessarily tariffs) and just tax net assets at a rate equal to the interest rate on the national debt -- exempting from taxation the same assets that are exempted by personal bankruptcy protection: home and tools of the trade.
Does Gates think he can beat the competition if they aren't beaten down for him by the government? This sort of arrogance by people who are the wealthiest isn't offset by giving their money to charity. They are eating the children of the middle class and destroying the future of the country that made them rich.Bill Should Just STFU (Score:3, Insightful)
For instance, he was wrong about the impact of the internet. He has also been wrong in forcasting technology trends, 14 YEARS IN A ROW.
I admire the fact that Bill has been able to become rich and successful. To his credit, he drove his company to take risks and challenge his competitors. If it weren't for the principles of Microsoft fighting for their market share, the industry might look much less inviting than it is today. Competition is a good thing, and Microsoft is nothing if not competative.
But when Bill wanders off the reservation, he gets himself in trouble. His ideas about world health are noble, but I don't think US pharma companies look too kindly at his dumping millions of dollars into areas where they could be raking in profits.
Free medicine? Ask Big Pharma what they thing that political philosophy constitutes.
Bill should keep his discussion focused on Microsoft and his competition. That is what he is best at. Commenting on open source products, not the philosophy that creates them, is probably a whole lot safer and let prone to embarrass His Highness.
Bill Gates is as clueless about open source as Nicolas II was about his peasantry.
Re:Bill Should Just STFU (Score:3, Interesting)
I admire the fact that Bill has been able to become rich and successful. To his credit, he drove his company to take risks and challenge his competitors. If it weren't for the principles of Microsoft fighting for their market share, the industry might look much less inviting than it is today. Competition is a good thing, and Microsoft is nothing if not competative.
Bill didn't become rich and successful. He was born rich, and used mommy's I
Gates Gets Confused and Stuff... (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, my Dad is an Episcopal priest and one of the things he taught during his sermons was the value of good works. These are (for those who skipped Church) the kind of things where you expect no reward, payment, etc.
Most people consider "good works" to be doling out food to the poor. But I would argue that writing something that a) seems useful to others and b) gives one some joy is also a good work.
After all, how many people went "thank god" when their system DIDN'T crash because some 13 year old decided to create the Windows worm du jour?
Open source is capitalist, DRM is a communist tool (Score:4, Insightful)
I am a worker (In my case an intellectual worker, but that doesn't matter) under both capitalism & communism I would be creating a product.
Under capitalism I create something, and I can sell it or give it away as I wish. It doesn't matter if that something is a wooden table or a computer program. It's my choice what I do with it.
The person I sell/gift it to can do with it as he or she wishes.
In other words, my product is covered by a BSD licence.
Under communism everything (including the fruits of my labours) belongs to "the people", in other words "the state". I make something, the state pays me a wage and it determies how and by whom the product is used.
Under capitalism (as described by Marx) competitive pressure forces the price of commodity goods down towards the cost of production. The producers can only make a profit by reducing their cost of production, including wages, to a minimum.
What's the true commodity cost of software? The cost of downloading and perhaps the cost of burning it to a CD.
Under communism, the state restricts competition, and interferes in the market, thus keeping the price of commodities high enough to ensure a decent wage for the workers.
The exact mechanism for how it restricts competition isn't that relevant. It could be "5 year plans" stating exactly how many will be produced, it could be limiting the number of people permitted to make the product, or it could be changing the patent rules to permit patenting the product rather than the old "patenting the process" model.
Under communism you have the state creating or enforcing monopolies on the production of commodity items. It doesn't matter if those items are cornflakes or software, the prices are kept artificially high to permit "the workers" to keep more of the wealth.
Looking to the USSR experiment, "the workers" that retained the wealth weren't so much the ones on the factory floor as the managers & the communist functionaries that replaced the former owners, but no-one can argue that the upper echelons of the society of the USSR were wealthy.
Re:Gentoo?? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Gentoo?? (Score:3, Funny)
It means the new Five Year Plan will only take you 4.96 years. Or it would, if emerge'ing KDE 3.4 weren't tying up your CPU.
Re:this doesn't make sence... (Score:2)
People really do get fooled by branding. Just because the Soviet Union was run by something called the Communist Party did not mean that they were actually following communism theory, any more than the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) promoted Democracy.