'Intellectual property' is not an American concept. England is probably the most to blame
Actually, neither are to blame for the root of what is mostly wrong with Intellectual Property: moral entitlement. France and Germany were the first to push for a recognition of Intellectual Property as a moral right, which resulted in the Berne Convention.
i'll slap the shit out of the next person who says openldap. it is pretty easy to do stuff like point an entire OU to a WSUS server and specify how updates are done.
Why would you want OpenLDAP to do that? Things like Group Policy and WSUS are by and large kludges to do what most other systems manage with light scripting. I got so fed up of Group Policy's crappy application deployment that I was glad to find someone had written a lovely system written in Javascript called WPKG. I don't understand this fear of 'shitloads of work' on Linux, is it because not everything has a GUI? I long for the day that we can ditch Windows and move to Linux, I could pretty much make myself redundant after setting that up.
Anti-porn is one of the few things that ultra-liberals ("objectifies women") and ultra-conservatives ("makes Jesus cry") can agree on.
The only liberal thing about being anti-porn is that you are allowed to hold that view.
Look into the ACTA treaty and you see you could be in a world of hurt for those "fell of the truck" goods...
I think they meant stolen rather than counterfeit.
Hmm, you know, the RIAA uses that same logic, but there were a couple of studies that showed the opposite: people who downloaded music spent more money on music (either discs, concerts or other products) than people who didn't download music. I wonder if the same holds for movies? I kind of suspect it does. If indeed it does, not only would the studios be attacking their customers, but attacking their best customers. If I were them, I would have wanted to test that one before launching the lawsuits.
Perhaps what worries them is that those who are spending more may be doing so because they aren't having to pay members of the RIAA. I have a subscription to Magnatune and often buy music from services like Bandcamp. I may well spend more on music than the majority of those earning more than me, but I tend to be very concious of where that money goes.
Amanda Palmer was originally on a major label and I certainly listen to the album recorded under them; however, lacking any incentive on merchandise, or access to live performances I had no accessible way to support her directly. Eventually she started releasing projects distributed on Bandcamp and I was able to overspend on those albums in the knowledge that the money was not going through an abusive label.
The issue here is the lack of distinction between the music industry and the recording industry, I may be a great customer for the former but am a pretty lousy customer for the major players of the latter.
it's all the middle men kicking each other back in between.
You may be interested in the RIAA Radar to avoid the majority of offending middlemen.
Know any good sites that of course will have samples of the music to help guide me?
Jamendo, Magnatune, Bandcamp, Amie Street, TheSixtyOne and Zunior; to name a few.
I see, so if the law isn't the way you want it to be, it is moronic.
On occasion, yes. What is your point?
The thing is that many artists want to share their work there way. If they can not be granted that right, they will not share their work.
There's a solution to that, not sharing their work.
I can use the work for my purpose and you can't use it for yours..
You seem oblivious to the proven exceptions such as for the purpose of parody. Perhaps you are suggesting that the L.H.O.O.Q version of the Mona Lisa would be unlawful under current law?
But if I am the copyright holder, I might want my art to not appear in excerpts (say I think it destroys the feeling of the piece). Obviously this argument is stupid for a CS textbook but might make sense for a well crafted novel or a painting where I might not want others to make black and white copies of portions of it and distribute them with information about how to buy the work from me. While I can't stop excerpting for criticism, I should be able to stop it for other uses--it is my art after all.
The point is when you create art, you have control of its expression as art. You have not only the right to exclusive sale of it but also how your work is expressed. If I own, i.e., a play and I license it, a company that produces it can not legally change the words to the play without my permission--it is my play and I can choose how it is presented.
Did I wake up in bizzaro world again?
I can understand you being pissed if I changed your work and passed it off as a faithful representation, but to say that you have absolute control over expression is moronic. That isn't property rights, nor authorship rights, that is 'I don't wanna play with the other kids because they're drawing moustaches on my Mona Lisa'.
Never trust an operating system.
