3 ms·

Your comment in no way actually addresses what he's saying, which is a hypothesis to the justification for why people do things. In fact, he didn't even confla

Your comment in no way actually addresses what he's saying, which is a hypothesis to the justification for why people do things. In fact, he didn't even conflate the terms as I see it, unless you want to say piracy is only related to theft. And the section you quoted doesn't even have the term "theft" in it (which you also quoted). In short, it's a tired talking point of a technicality that adds almost nothing to the larger discussion. It sounds like you have strong opinions on the topic -- I'd love to hear more about how you think people justify copyright infringement.

maratd 15y ago
> I'd love to hear more about how you think people justify copyright infringement. People don't justify anything. By saying that something needs to be justified, you are suggesting that this is a moral issue? It's wrong for me to copy patterns of bytes? If so, then I've been a sinner since I was 10. Remember those 5 1/4 floppies, BBSes, IRC, etc? Yeah. Copyright law was designed with businesses in mind, not individuals. Fair use should be expanded to encompass all personal use of patented or copyrighted material. Restrictions should only apply to commercial application. Speaking of business ... Did I mention I create digital works every day? That's what I do. I create software. My work can easily be copied ... and if it was, I wouldn't blame anyone but myself. Actually, I wouldn't even blame myself. Because my rampant "piracy" as a kid made me realize something. There is no value in software. There is only value in service. The software I write is merely a tool that I use to render a service and even if you copied it, you would only be left with a tool. I'm the final part of the equation and I can't be copied. That's the right way to do software. What people don't mention is that the software industry was first. Before music, before movies, before books, before any of that ... the software industry was forced to change, more than that, it was born changed, because digital "piracy" was born with the software industry.
- nirvdrum 15y ago
  If you build good software that does what it's supposed to, there's no need for service. There may be need for additional software to solve a new problem and in that sense, you provide a service. But I certainly don't want software that I need to keep going back to the vendor for fixes for or new documentation or for training on how to use it. I think that's very much the wrong way to do software, despite your emphatic use of italics.
  - maratd 15y ago
    You are a fine demagogue. You recognize exactly what I meant. > There may be need for additional software to solve a new problem and in that sense, you provide a service. And then assume I meant something else. > But I certainly don't want software that I need to keep going back to the vendor for fixes for or new documentation or for training on how to use it. Shame on you, sir. > I think that's very much the wrong way to do software, despite your emphatic use of italics. I think this is very much the wrong way to have a civilized discussion, despite your wit.
    - nirvdrum 15y ago
      That's a shame - I was fond of the HTML pun. And I was legitimately unsure what you meant by your definition of service. Apologies if hedging my bet there irked you. I'm not a freelance/contractor/consultant and have no desire to be one, so the presumption that that's the only proper model for software development is one I don't take as a given. For what it's worth, I don't agree you should be downvoted. But you also have made it hard to have an actual discussion by casting everything as right/wrong type of situation and then clearly dictating what is right or wrong. That really makes it hard to have a civilized discussion because there's no seeking of understanding, just refutation.
  - kevinpacheco 15y ago
    Maybe you don't, but others do. That's why Red Hat is a billion-dollar-a-year company.
    - nirvdrum 15y ago
      Oh, absolutely. JBoss was long held up as the only viable model for being successful with open source and the inevitable model everyone would fall into. Give away the software, charge for support. The problem is support just isn't very scalable. There's room for both: different strokes for different folks. But I still think the ideal in software should be for a tool that just works and is intuitive enough to not require training. There are a lot of tricky problem domains where that's unlikely to ever happen. Such is often the case with ideals.

maratd 15y ago

> I'd love to hear more about how you think people justify copyright infringement. People don't justify anything. By saying that something needs to be justified, you are suggesting that this is a moral issue? It's wrong for me to copy patterns of bytes? If so, then I've been a sinner since I was 10. Remember those 5 1/4 floppies, BBSes, IRC, etc? Yeah. Copyright law was designed with businesses in mind, not individuals. Fair use should be expanded to encompass all personal use of patented or copyrighted material. Restrictions should only apply to commercial application. Speaking of business ... Did I mention I create digital works every day? That's what I do. I create software. My work can easily be copied ... and if it was, I wouldn't blame anyone but myself. Actually, I wouldn't even blame myself. Because my rampant "piracy" as a kid made me realize something. There is no value in software. There is only value in service. The software I write is merely a tool that I use to render a service and even if you copied it, you would only be left with a tool. I'm the final part of the equation and I can't be copied. That's the right way to do software. What people don't mention is that the software industry was first. Before music, before movies, before books, before any of that ... the software industry was forced to change, more than that, it was born changed, because digital "piracy" was born with the software industry.

nirvdrum 15y ago
If you build good software that does what it's supposed to, there's no need for service. There may be need for additional software to solve a new problem and in that sense, you provide a service. But I certainly don't want software that I need to keep going back to the vendor for fixes for or new documentation or for training on how to use it. I think that's very much the wrong way to do software, despite your emphatic use of italics.
- maratd 15y ago
  You are a fine demagogue. You recognize exactly what I meant. > There may be need for additional software to solve a new problem and in that sense, you provide a service. And then assume I meant something else. > But I certainly don't want software that I need to keep going back to the vendor for fixes for or new documentation or for training on how to use it. Shame on you, sir. > I think that's very much the wrong way to do software, despite your emphatic use of italics. I think this is very much the wrong way to have a civilized discussion, despite your wit.
  - nirvdrum 15y ago
    That's a shame - I was fond of the HTML pun. And I was legitimately unsure what you meant by your definition of service. Apologies if hedging my bet there irked you. I'm not a freelance/contractor/consultant and have no desire to be one, so the presumption that that's the only proper model for software development is one I don't take as a given. For what it's worth, I don't agree you should be downvoted. But you also have made it hard to have an actual discussion by casting everything as right/wrong type of situation and then clearly dictating what is right or wrong. That really makes it hard to have a civilized discussion because there's no seeking of understanding, just refutation.
- kevinpacheco 15y ago
  Maybe you don't, but others do. That's why Red Hat is a billion-dollar-a-year company.
  - nirvdrum 15y ago
    Oh, absolutely. JBoss was long held up as the only viable model for being successful with open source and the inevitable model everyone would fall into. Give away the software, charge for support. The problem is support just isn't very scalable. There's room for both: different strokes for different folks. But I still think the ideal in software should be for a tool that just works and is intuitive enough to not require training. There are a lot of tricky problem domains where that's unlikely to ever happen. Such is often the case with ideals.