Linux-Advocacy Digest #197, Volume #33 Fri, 30 Mar 01 15:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Chad Everett)
Re: What is the size of Linux 2.4.1 Kernel (Chad Everett)
Re: NO operating system is secure... (Chad Everett)
Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger! ("Andy Walker")
Re: Communism ("Andy Walker")
Re: Windows, Linux and evolutionary models ("Andy Walker")
Re: Linus for a 386???? (TTK Ciar)
MS patents ones and zeros... (Donn Miller)
Maxwell (TTK Ciar)
Great opportunity for some Linux advocacy? ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:10:46 GMT
"Barry Manilow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Mx Devlin" wrote:
>
> NT is
> > certainly faster, and better able to handle I/O and multi-tasking.
>
> I believe it has been shown over and over that NT is about 20% slower
> than Win 98, which was 20% slower to Win95. WinME has been shown to
> be 10% slower than Win98. Win2K is the slowest of all. A friend has
> it on a 700 MHZ and it is so slow it is depressing. I just got thru
> using NT on a 600 MHZ with 128 MB and it was quite slow. Like a
> lumbering beast.
This is the same kind of fuzzy thinking/talk that the Windows crowd is
always trying to pawn off on linux advocates. slower how? Is this just
your subjective experience? We're supposed to take this as valid evidence
because something is slow on your "friend's 700 MHZ" machine. Come on, just
the facts maam.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: What is the size of Linux 2.4.1 Kernel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:19:22 GMT
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:08:20 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Alan Po wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> Would you tell me the size of Linux 2.4.1 kernel? Is it very large?
>>
>
>The compressed image is just over 600k -
>
>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 661329 Mar 26 12:57 vmlinuz
>
My compressed 2.4.3pre6 kernel is about 1Meg (as is 2.4.2):
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1016180 Mar 21 17:26 vmlinuz-2.4.3pre6
You obviously have a lot more code farmed out to modules than I do.
I use modules for sound, etc. but I like to keep my network card,
scsi drivers in the kernel itself.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: NO operating system is secure...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:21:02 GMT
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:03:19 GMT, Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>when you have dumb users:
>
>http://www.msnbc.com/news/550850.asp
>
>Also anyone else think it's kind of weird how MSNBC will criticize
>Microsoft's security and still use Active Server?
>
No surprise there. This is just complaining about your spouse to a
friend, but you still go to bed with her every night.
------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger!
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:24:52 -0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>No...Back in the late 1970's, when Bill Gates was selling the BASIC
>interpreter that he ***STOLE*** from DEC, he had the gall to go to
>a microcomputer convention and chide shop-owners for making copies
>of it.
>
>Typical thinking of a megalomaniac "It's not criminal when *I* do it."
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>DNRC Minister of all I survey
>ICQ # 3056642
Let's face it, just about every so called innovation from Microsoft has been
stolen from somewhere, the WIMP system from Xerox for starters.
They haven't got a single original concept in their entire bodies, their
motto must be "buy, borrow or steal". The only new concept Microsoft have
introduced is the acceptability of unfinished and buggy code!
Q. Whats the diferrence between Windows and Viagra?
A. Viagra will help you stay up for at least an hour!
------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:33:22 -0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>Not for those who are looking for something pre-installed from a
>mass merchandiser.
>
>Although Compaq would LOVE to sell you a computer with Linux
>pre-installed, they are currently hamstrung by Microsoft's
>anti-competetive contracts.
>
>Microsoft and communism are very similar. Neither one has much
>tolerance for the little people doing something different.
>
>
>
>
I've just read an article about Compaq. Alledgedly by Summer this year they
will supply machines with four flavours of Linux.
Should be interesting to see. For those interested, the article is in the
April edition on Linux Format.
My guess is that Compaq will do it for purely financial reasons. It must be
at least fifty pounds profit per machine extra after not paying for a
Windows OEM licence!
------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows, Linux and evolutionary models
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:43:32 -0000
Karel Jansens wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Andy Walker wrote:
>>
>> Natural selection partly relies on the ability to adapt to the future. As
>> the future almost certainly involves multiuser, multitasking and
>> multiplatform not to mention stability, I can't see Windows making the
>> decade out. Whereas Linux is already being ported to 64 bit architecture,
>> Windows still relies on 16 bit DOS in parts and is very badly supported
in
>> the types of processors it runs on.
>> Scalabilty is also an important issue. Linux can be used, as has already
>> been seen, in anything from embedded set top boxes up to large network
>> servers. With the inevitable integration of electrical consumer goods and
>> audio visual systems, Linux is perfectly suited to being at the forefront
of
>> this revolution.
>
>Natural selection can only take the past into account, it most certainly
>does not "adapt to the future" (how would that be possible, unless the
>"entity" controlling the evolution has a way of looking into the
>future?)
>
>IMHO this whole analogy between biological evolution and
>electronic/algorithmic evolution sucks big time: Natural selection is
>not controlled by some kind of intelligence, while it is evident that
>the electronic evolution is (albeit often a very limited form of
>intelligence, also known as "management"); natural selection is not
>striving to achieve some kind of utopian goal, it is just the way
>biological organisms happen to react to a changing environment; natural
>selection is not interested in the best possible solution, it will be
>more than satisfied with one that works.
>
>It seems to me that the only thing biological and electronic evolution
>have in common is that they change over time.
>
>Well duh...
>
>--
A few companies are experimenting with organic memory. The theory is that
the organic system has considerably greater capacity than semiconductors for
said size.
This could be the dawn of a new era of organic computers and you may find
that biological and electronic evolution have a great deal in common in the
future!
------------------------------
From: TTK Ciar
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linus for a 386????
Date: 30 Mar 2001 18:13:00 GMT
Once upon a time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (BoogerT) said:
> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:09:37 GMT
>
>I have a 386 with a 41 meg harddrive and 8 megs of RAM. What would be a good
>linux distro for this machine which would allow me to access the Internet,
>too? If there is one, where would I get it and do documents come with it?
>Thanks in advance,
That is almost exactly the same kind of configuration I was using
for my home LAN's firewall for a few years (except that my system
had only 4MB RAM). I'm a slackware user by habit, but I've noticed
that recent slackware distributions have gotten a bit bloaty for a
lightweight system like this one.
What I used for my 386 was Slackware v3.0, which is a bit old but
still quite functional. http://www.slackware.com/
-- TTK
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:09:54 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: MS patents ones and zeros...
Yep, we all knew it was coming.
http://www.cnn.com@sci-tech@3520040376/new_010325/alert/breakingnews.html
Darn, I guess it's back to analog computing with op-amps for the rest of
us "little people".
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: TTK Ciar
Subject: Maxwell
Date: 30 Mar 2001 18:22:56 GMT
I recently stumbled across the Maxwell WYSIWYG word processor
for Linux (and Solaris) on Freshmeat (http://www.freshmeat.net).
It's a little light on the features, and it looks like the author
bent over backwards to make it look+feel like MS-Word, but
otherwise it is quite an excellent word processor, easier to use
and more wieldly than StarOffice or ABIWord. I am surprised that
it isn't more popular.
The Maxwell build process is pretty rough, and the world is
still enough of a MS-centric place that it should probably support
importing/exporting MS-Word .doc format, so there's still some
work to be done .. but I guess I could allocate a few hours of my
time towards it. :-)
-- TTK
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Great opportunity for some Linux advocacy?
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:20:00 +0200
Folks,
Thanks to MS's policies lately, I think we can safely say that it becomes
ever easier to advocate Linux. We have been over the mandatory
registration many times, but how is this latest MS outrage for another
opportunity?
http://www.internetweek.com/newslead01/lead032901.htm
Have fun,
Mart
--
Write in C, write in C,
Write in C, yeah, write in C.
Only wimps use BASIC, Write in C.
http://www.orca.bc.ca/spamalbum/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:21:35 GMT
Said Paul 'Z' Ewande� in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> >Why not ? You want me to assume "Remarkably pathetic, as I suggested,
>> >considering how bad WinDOS does in this department." without offering no
>> >back up whatsoever. <shrug>
>>
>> No, I want you to *recognize* "remarkably pathetic [et. al,]"; no
>
>Just because *you* said so ? Get real.
Because it was said. Who said it is not the relevant issue. Get real.
>> assumption is necessary. Just open your eyes and put away your
>> prejudices, and compare the products.
>
>What prejudices ? Are you not the one crapping on some products here ? And
>engage in rants with have little to see with the issue at hand and who even
>acknowledges this.
>
>"Other than my natural instinct to rant, I can't really disagree with
>anything you've said" in this very thread..
>
>It's indeed a straw-beam-eye situation.
>
>> >> rather than MS's crappy design which allows such putative "hardware"
>> >> dependencies to exist, is at fault?
>> >>
>> >> Nope, sorry, can't blame hardware. Not unless you can point to
>> >
>> >I can't. Watch me: I've seen different behaviours on various systems
>with
>> >different versions of
>>
>> And made assumptions about the variables that are entirely unsupported,
>> and in fact ridiculous, no doubt. Like my old buddy Roger, who had to
>
>Go there: news://comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips and find the "Formatting a
>floppy while multitasking" thread. Apparently, what i claimed doesn't seem
>so silly to hardware junkies.
Model numbers?
>> replace his video *hardware* to get *IE* to work, and acted as if it was
>> a hardware failure.
>
>Shows how far you think. When you replace the video card [assuming you
>change brands], you are very likely to
Prove yourself a sucker?
[...]
>> >yours. <roll eyes>.
>>
>> Shrugs, rolling of eyes; no doubt next you'll <sigh>.
>
>What I do next is point out that you *still* haven't put forward the
>evidence that NT multitasking is crap. you lose.
That doesn't make NT's multitasking any more acceptable, though, does
it?
>> So you can't name any such hardware, is that right?
>
>That's right. I won't run around opening PCs to check the Floppy disk
>controller/drive to see the brand and model. I just posted my observation
>that floppy disk formatting wasn't MS OSes dependant. On some systems it
>worked on some it didn't, regardless of the OS. So I blame the hardware.
Yea, kind of like Roger's video card. Did you not get the point?
>Rant away, you are even allowed to use tghe infamous
>
><MAX> Because I say so </MAX>
>
>I'm out.
>
>> T. Max Devlin
>> *** The best way to convince another is
>> to state your case moderately and
>> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
>How ironic.
How original.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:21:36 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
[...]
>If someone attempts to enter your country, unanounced, without making
>proper contact with the appropriate authorities (customs officials,
>border patrol, air traffic control), then they are a legitimate target
>for those personnel charged with the DUTY of defending the border.
>
>What's the difference between "illegal immigrants" and "invading
>army" other than numbers?
Nothing, if you're a paranoid schizophrenic.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:21:37 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>Jarno Nurminen wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> > Ah yes, anybody who doesn't support Communism is a "nazi"
>>
>> How would you feel if majority of US citizens would select communism as
>> their new ideology? If the answer is "kill them all" then one could call
>> you a nazi. Modern society, at least in here, in build on the foundation
>> of everyone having their own oppinion heard. If you someone doesen't
>> like what their neighbour is thinking, it's fine, but judging people
>> just because of what they think is something I would call nazism. Of
>> course, this definiton of "nazism" is not so far away of the way USSR
>> worked...
>
>Your definition of nazism is extremely sloppy.
>
>Nazism is a brand of fascism. Fascism is a form of SOCIALISM.
>(what part of National SOCIALIST Party do you not understand?).
Fascism is an idealogy, neither economic system (socialism) nor
political (communism). Fascism is the oppression of any other but the
"official" ideology, which is precisely what Roger as so accurately
identified as your behavior. The fact that the Nazis called themselves
the "national socialist party" doesn't have anything to do with fascism.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the
Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and
that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a
dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and
forcible suppression of opposition.
What part of "forcible suppression of opposition" (definitely your stock
in trade, Aaron, with all your "up against the wall" machismo bullshit)
do you not understand?
>Are you saying that because I disagree with the Communists, that
>I'm some sort of socialist...
No, we're saying that because you find it impossible to disagree with
communists, nor agree, nor do anything but threaten them with execution
should they continue to disagree with your ideology, that makes YOU,
Aaron, a fascist.
>Keep in mind, that my major objection to Communism IS THAT IT IS A
>FORM OF SOCIALISM.
We really don't care, Aaron.
>I detest NAzism as strongly as I detest Communism because I HATE
>SOCIALISM IN ALL FORMS...because Socialism is merely a polite word
>for government-run slavery.
So says Aaron Kulkis. Big whoop.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:21:38 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said GreyCloud in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:42:52
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said GreyCloud in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:56:28
>> >> >[...]Eventually,
>> >> >capitalism will slowly topple the communist system.
>> >>
>> >> Didn't they teach any of you little boys in school that capitalism is an
>> >> economic system, as is socialism, while communism is a political system,
>> >> as is democracy? Please, no one-dimensional thinking to explain the
>> >> error: just admit it is an error and think harder about your opinion.
>> >> Just because your own carefully learned bigotries prevents you from
>> >> seeing the two distinctly doesn't mean you should encourage the same
>> >> prejudice in others.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> T. Max Devlin
>> >> *** The best way to convince another is
>> >> to state your case moderately and
>> >> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>> >
>> >Take note: The communist system in the Soviet Union was toppled.
>> >Communism in the economic sense is a total failure. [...]
>>
>> Apparently, you aren't listening. Communism *doesn't have* an "economic
>> sense", unless you're misusing the word, which generally torpedoes any
>> argument you might present on the matter.
>
>Then why does so much of Marx's writings deal with economic systems,
>and what he called his Communist economic system...
Marx was a philosopher engaging in free inquiry. His writings covered a
great deal of the human condition. But you're the kind of person who
would kill a person for disagreeing with you, politically, so whatever
your opinion is of Marx's writings, is irrelevant. It seems likely that
your basically incapable of understanding anything he wrote clearly, due
to your mental health problems.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:21:39 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
[...]
>> I know all about freedom of speech. I'm not forcing kulkis to stop talking,
>> you idiot.
>
>Tell you what...if you TRULY believe that I made a "death threat", then
>feel free to send it to the police.
I think Yahoo already took care of that. It sure looked like a death
threat to me. Not a very serious one, of course, but children need to
learn that there are consequences.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:21:40 GMT
Said Michael Allen in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:53:50
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Michael Allen in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 29 Mar 2001 03:48:51
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said HIM in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:51:40 -0500;
>> >> >
>> >> >"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> >> Looks like MS is betting the farm on content protection. Good. The
>> >> >> more they bet, the more they lose. :-)
>> >> >
>> >> >MS never bet the farm on anything. And probably never will.
>> >>
>> >> Other than the monopoly, we presume you mean. Watch what happens when
>> >> the stock hits $30.
>> >>
>> >> >And as far as
>> >> >content protection goes they could care less.Why would they?
>> >>
>> >> Because Bill Gates has always dreamed of being able to charge people
>for
>> >> using intellectual property.
>> >
>> >It is not a dream, it happens every day across multiple industries.
>Books,
>> >movies, music, software, etc. etc.
>>
>> BZZZZ. Sorry, only software belongs in that category, and then only
>> speculatively. You obviously misunderstood the concept. You pay for a
>> *book* or a *performance* or what have you, not any "use of intellectual
>> property". Only producers do that. As for software, we're not talking
>> about charging for "licenses to use" (which aren't, by the way, licenses
>> to use, but trade secret agreements pretending to be licenses to copy),
>> we're talking about charging for actual use.
>
>IP encompasses patents, trademarks and copyrights. Individuals and
>corporations charge millions of dollars every day for the use of their
>patented, trademarked and copyrighted IP. You are demonstrating your
>ignorance of this topic and the law.
You are misunderstanding the argument, which has nothing to do with
whether anyone "makes money" from intellectual property, but *how* they
make money from owning intellectual property.
>>
>> >The owner of intellectual property has
>> >every right, supported by existing law on the books today, to charge people
>> >for the use of their property.
>>
>> BZZZZ. This is, again, a misconception. The *only* right the owner of
>> intellectual property has is the ability to determine (and charge for
>> such consideration) who can *produce* his works. Copyright gives no
>> power whatsoever to charge for use of IP. You have been duped by the
>> trade secret licenses, and you are not alone.
>
>Here's the code (you are wrong again). Note that the copyright owner has
>the "exclusinve rights to do and to authorize any of the following", and
>note the words "sale", "rental", "lease" and "lending" in subsection 3.
>(and this is only one small piece of Title 17).
You're again simply misconstruing the argument.
>> >Max, do you believe people have the right to download
>> >music (IP) they have not paid for without the artist's (owner's)
>> >approval?
>> >I'd like to know where you stand on this.
>>
>> Who's "they"?
>
>"they" can be anyone, you or me. And I'll ask the question again: Do you
>believe an individual has the right to download a copy of a song they have
>not paid for? Yes or No. I say No.
Shocker. Let me ask you something: how much can an author ethically
charge for something that costs him nothing, and has no functional
value?
>> I believe copyright law (and, more importantly, popular
>> misconceptions about copyright law) needs to be modified to become
>> reasonable. It may have been rational before, when it could be assumed
>> that distribution required production. But since the costs of these
>> things have dropped, and the prices haven't, there is every reason to
>> believe that rather than exercising any "right to profit", corporate
>> media owners are under the impression they have a right to profiteer.
>
>Production and distribution *costs* do not impact rights granted under
>copyright law.
No, but they do impact what is a "fair profit". I realize there are
some people who blithely insist there is no such thing, and it seems
obvious to me that such people are immoral. Are you immoral?
>Just becasue those costs have tended to zero when the
>Internet is the distribution channel does not mean the value of the IP has
>changed in any way, shape or form.
BZZZZ. Let's try this again: intellectual property *is not* a
metaphysical substance. "It" *has no value*, by nature. And, yes, OF
COURSE driving the cost of reproduction and distribution to zero means
the value of the IP tends towards zero. Why on earth wouldn't it?
>Using your logic, a Rolling Stones song
>should sell for the same amount as the crap I could compose (or more
>accurately, couldn't compose) as long as the distribution channel was the
>Internet. That is absurd!
Let me ask you; you think anyone would need a T1 to keep up with the
demand for your song? I doubt it. See, just because costs or prices
"tend toward zero" doesn't mean they ever *become* zero. Though they
may very well drop below a level which might sustain a profit in a
competitive market. That's when you have to start thinking about
value-add and selling convenience and such.
>The Stones have every right to charge
>exponentially more for their IP than I do, and to earn exponentially more
>profit from their IP than I can.
The Grateful Dead have the same rights, and provide evidence that the
Rolling Stones' business model is not at all necessary and appears
somewhat detrimental in ensuring that those with the greater talent,
ability, or efforts making music receive proportional compensation.
>> >Look
>> >at DIVX (per use, rental charge for DVDs) for example. It wasn't convenient
>> >for users, was confusing in it's implementation, didn't provide value (i.e.
>> >was too expensive) and thus, it died a natural death in the marketplace.
>>
>> Stillborn, just like all such attempts, as I said. There's nothing
>> natural about such schemes; they're attempts at monopolization, not free
>> marketplace behavior.
>>
>
>We agree here - if it isn't natural or convienient or doesn't provide value,
>it will not fly or will be stillborn. But the IP owner still has the right
>to charge whatever they want for their IP.
Without competition, "what the market will bear" is no longer a
measurement of the value, and so you are, in fact, mistaken. An IP
owner has a right to charge. They have no "right" to charge "whatever
they want". The most they are "allowed" to charge is "fair market
value". And if they differ on what that is, it should and does hurt
their profitability.
>Spielberg has every right to
>charge $100 per ticket for his next movie, and $500 for every copy sold on
>DVD or VHS.
Yes, people have the "right" to do stupid things. And due to the
wonders of habeas corpus, people have a "right" to rip Spielberg's
overprices fiasco. I would be delusional to suggest that they were not
breaking the law when doing so, but that doesn't mean they're acting
unethically. And you know what? If Steven's work is really good
(particularly if it is good enough that it is worth the extra money),
Speilberg will *still* make money on it! Though not as much as if he'd
just sold it at normal rates, without so severely restricting his
market.
And if anyone else makes any money on it, Spielberg has the right to
charge them royalties at the highest reasonable rate (which, ironically,
should leave enough profit for them to continue operations, if they are
efficient at production/distribution.)
>If consumers don't want to pay that much, they will vote with
>their feet and wallets. But that doesn't mean Spielberg can't try it, and
>it doesn't mean an individual has the right to make a copy of the movie.
No, copyright does not trump the Sherman Act. One can be guilty of
monopolization or restraint of trade, even if one has a patent or
copyright. The conflict is deeper than you imagine.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:21:42 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>Mathew wrote:
[...]
>Having a monopoly is not illegal.
>
>Engaging in a pattern of anti-competitive behavior to gain and hold
>the monopoly *is*.
And since there *is no other way to have a monopoly* in a free-market
capitalist economy, having a monopoly is evidence of monopolization, and
is therefore unlawful, if not illegal. This is the reason Congress did
not outlaw "patterns of anti-competitive behavior to gain or hold a
monopoly", but simply "monopolization *and attempts to monopolize*"
(emphasis added).
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
