the future of the information society?

[Doom9]

I came across this today at work. As I'm currently working with Cisco IP phone services I was looking for online resources, and Cisco's official book suggests this site: www.hotdispatch.com

The idea is sort of appealing: you post your problem and the amount of money you're willing to pay for the solution. Okay, I don't really like pay services (and considering the average questions asked with my 2 weeks development experience in that area I'm already quite knowledgeable), but here's where it really gets off tack: most posted solutions are private. Even with an account there's no way to access them. Now what the f*** is that?

It lead me to think about this on a more global scale. With copyright laws getting togher and togher, copyright durations being extended beyond reason, copyright owners wanting to only make their stuff available in DRM protected format (so they can revoke your access any time they please, and charge you for every access), more and more patents granted for trivial things, tougher patent laws, etc. If we continue like that, we'll end up in a society where every bit of information has a pricetag, and where you're not allowed to share the info even if you have paid for it. I don't give away entire programs for free either (my employer wouldn't like that), but what's so darned wrong with helping out a guy in need, if he's done his homework?

Imagine, if I had charged for access to my site in the beginning. No way that I'd have more than a 100'000 visitors a day, and if access to this forum carried a price tag from day one, we wouldn't have 50'000 members, an average of almost 300 people online at all times, and probably the most knowledgeable members any board in this area has. You can literally find anything, even for a developer it is a good place to be, and everything is free. Imagine if people like thewef, len0x, dvd2svcd, lightning_uk, eyes'only, jdobbs, derrow, etc. all charged for their tools, plus to help you if you have any problems. Is the free exchange of information not beneficial for everyone? Of course we have to prevent leeches from only taking advantage without giving anything back, but that's why we have a strict set of rules that requires everyone to do their homework before taking advantage of other people's knowledge.

Anyway, I felt I had to get this off my chest, and I hope you do realize how lucky we are here (me included, I'm still learning stuff, not only from this place but various other places on the net that provide information for free). And in order to make it last, we need to be vigilant and stop the proponents of a DRM industry in their tracks. For starters, don't vote for anyone who is in favor of strict copyright laws, and who proposes DRM as the way to go for access to copyrighted information.

[Mug Funky]

FWIW, my philosophy on things like this is that it's like a swinging pendulum.

it can't be denied that for a long time people have had it very good as far as having lots to get for free (including pirated programs/music/etc, which in principle everyone will agree is kinda wrong). now what's happening is that the powers that be are overcompensating for this. the pendulum is swinging the other way, but it will swing back when we all realise a pay-per-use society is so unbelievably wasteful and unsustainable, so things will swing the other way, whether we have a choice or not.

i say "whether we have a choice or not" because i see the world as a very large self-regulating system. if people live unsustainably and unfairly, it will eventually lead to a world so inhospitable that most of us will die out, and whoever's left will know better than to be wasteful...

right now society is heading toward a kind of corporate fascism, where gonvernments don't control their populations, rather business does. this cannot possibly last long, and either the people will change this trend, or our world will change it for us.

[edit]

and, yes. i'm aware how lucky i and everyone else is to have public forums like this one to disseminate our expertise (humble though mine is). one of the few things i enjoy more than learning new stuff is helping people out, and i don't think i'm alone in this mentality. as information becomes more controlled, there will always be people like us willing to give for free because it simply feels good. of course, depending how far things go, we may have to go underground to help each other...

[Neo Neko]

Simple. Knowledge is power. He who has all knowledge is all powerfull. And that is exactly what's going on.

These people are through with having their consumers dictate to them. They are seeking to dictate to their consumers. Trying to figure out what the consumer wants is not an easy thing. You have to research and develop. And after all that you could still fail. Should you succede then you have to promote and get the word out or you could still fail. Assuming that all that came before was a sucess you still can't sit on your laurels. If you don't develop or advance you product someone else will find a way and make you redundant. It's a risky venture frought with danger and uncertainty.

Now look at it through the eyes of the IP mafia. If you control everything then consumers will buy what you say they should buy. You can get by with less research and development. Your word is gosple so you don't have to mess with promoting or getting the word out. And once it is out you can sit raking in the dough till your product becomes a non outdated antiquity since no one else may compete. It's a safe venture filled with masive net profit and verry little R&D. There is no doubt and no uncertainty. And failure is almost unheard of. You are free to do what you want when you want. And the consumers are just going to have to accept that.

Can anyone honestly deny that this is not what is happening? Few examples Microsoft[though now to a bit lesser extent], RIAA[and friends], MPAA[and friends], Bush[and friends]. Welcome to the 21st centure where thought is not free and neither will you be.

[Mug Funky]

hmmm. sounds disturbing. good thing it can't possibly last. the populace is too well educated. even russia couldn't make communism last, and they had the benefits of purging the elite to begin with.

what's probably going to happen is that the open-source mentality will spread to many many other aspects of culture. look at George Michael, giving away all his new stuff for free, because he wants to. this is an infectious way of thinking, especially if the status quo is opressive in the area of IP.

[Doom9]

talking about Russia, it's a good example that the pendulum analogy not necessarily holds. The road to freedom is always cluttered with stones and roadblocks, whereas the road to dictatorship usually takes a general taking charge and sending his people out to overthrow an elected government (there's plenty of examples of this happening in Africa or South America). The freedoms we enjoy (or used to enjoy) in the DVD area, notably fair use.. we didn't get that easily, it took a powerful company (Sony, no longer our friend), going all the way to the Supreme Court. Passing of the DMCA and all the other stupid laws that are either already in effect, or soon will be, did take a lot less longer (but probably more money because of all the politicians that had to be bribed), but it'll take ages to get rid of them again (if this is at all possible). There's a huge list of cases showing that the DMCA is a piece of garbage (you can find it at www.eff.org), yet even the librarian of congress, who is supposed to collect such cases and report to congress if the DMCA is really working, is dragging his feet.

[Neo Neko]

I also don't think the pendulum analogy always holds. With dictatorships it's quite obvious who is screwing who. With the emerging phenomina of monopoly or IP horder controlled government it is much more insiddious. Where the dictator causes often immediate change this does not. It slowly erodes and eliminates the choices and rights people were once afforded. And choice much like in the matrix is often just the illusion of choice any more. [Bush or Kerry. It's a choice. But is it? One ritch white guy on one side and another ritch white guy on the other side. About the only difference I can see is that Kerry is less scarry and seems more intelligent.] Most people just accept it. The few that don't end in places like zion errrrr doom9.net where we discuss this amongst ourselves. And occasionaly aproach the surface for forrays into the larger social network to combat the agents of the corporations sucking the life out of everyone.

[Mug Funky]

i hear you neo, but i never said how fast the pendulum has to swing...
i'm sure people felt this helpless toward the end of the Roman Empire, or perhaps just before the Reformation.

Empires fall. both political and economic ones. take a look around - there's a lot of decadence. don't quote me on this in 40 years time, but i suspect major changes are going to happen in the next few decades. there's only so much crap people can be fed before they spit it out, and vomit all over those that feed them. :)

[Neo Neko]

We will have to see. But I still have serious doubts. At no time in previous recorded history has there ever been the ability to so discretly control peoples lives as there is today. It's so unobtrusive many people still live in ignorant bliss. The average person does not have roman soldiers/RIAA goons marching up and down in front of their house. That sort of thing only happens to other people in what seems like another country. But not to them. We think we are free here in the US. But can we be sure? Paranoia ensues.

[Mug Funky]

"if there is hope, it lies in the Proles"

hehehe... couldn't resist.

[Fredledingue]

Windows whould be made public domain.

In general and to some extent, poeple are not bying things that are not worth the money. Poeple pirate softwares, movies and songs because they feel it's not worth paying for. You can record a cassette of music from the radio for free. Why then, pay to download mp3?
The best proof that these stuffs are not worth paying for, and that poeple who pirate or illegaly use them for free, are right, is that Microsoft is still earning big bucks and so do the movies companies, famous actors, popstars etc.

The second reason why the internet, like aerial tv and radio, should not be pay-per-use is that we live in a addvertisement-based society.
Whatever we get, wherever we go, we are overwhelmed by adds. Even on pay-per-use services we will still be subject to unwanted adds.
We get our freedom at th price of being submitted by the advertisement industry. Paying more than that will be too much, unviable.

Also, Neo Neko, it's not always possible to have a choice for everthing. We can't realy choose our OS or our president, we can't realy choose our bread neither.
You can choose to have cheaper, whealthier and better bread by doing it yourself. Like the internet comunity is doing.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Fredledingue
Windows whould be made public domain.

Why? What good is opensource Windows if they still bundle. Remember there is all sorts of opensource. Speaking of opensource (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/05/135241&mode=thread&tid=109&tid=126&tid=156&tid=187) Microsoft has just released some on sourceforge. Not that the release does not have sinister overtones. Opensource is not the answer to everything. Without Microsoft being Microsoft opensource could not be opensource. What good would day be without night? Could we apreciate the light without dark? Life without death? The answer is to stop Microsoft from funding all their endavors from the MS Windows profits and to reduce the practice of bundling. Allowing them to use their desktop monopoly to fund their other endavors is akin to just letting them have a monopoly in all those other areas. No one will be able to compete.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
The best proof that these stuffs are not worth paying for, and that poeple who pirate or illegaly use them for free, are right, is that Microsoft is still earning big bucks and so do the movies companies, famous actors, popstars etc.

Monopolies and the IP mafia will earn money regardless of most of what consumers do. It can't be used to justify piracy. There is no justification for piracy. Just as the blanket use of the term piracy can't be justified by what it is being aplied to.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
The second reason why the internet, like aerial tv and radio, should not be pay-per-use is that we live in a addvertisement-based society.
Whatever we get, wherever we go, we are overwhelmed by adds. Even on pay-per-use services we will still be subject to unwanted adds.
We get our freedom at th price of being submitted by the advertisement industry. Paying more than that will be too much, unviable.

I get very few ads everywhere I go on the net. But if it catches on this could become an issue. Either we will all have to submit to a manditory number of ads in order to support some. Or we may have to come to a pay per use system. But only if there are less/no ads. Having seen examples of TV from other countries I can say that there is definatly a compromise and that the US is way out in left field with it's broadcasters. In the UK and other countries two commercial breaks an hour are the norm. And they range anywhere from 5~8 minutes each. As opposed to the 4 5 minute+ breaks an hour on US TV. Wan't a little program sprinkled in with your adverts? Granted the BBC gets government funding. But it's not like American broadcasters are rapidly being put in the poorhouse or anything. In fact they are making as much or more than they ever did and spending less on most of their programming.[reality shows my arse]

Originally posted by Fredledingue
Also, Neo Neko, it's not always possible to have a choice for everthing.

Yes we can. There is a point at which the number of choices can become counter productive. But there is always a choice. For instance is there a real need to fine Howard Stern? Or could people just not listen/watch him. It's a choice. The main reason people listen to him is for the very things he is fined for. Clearly someone likes it.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
We can't realy choose our OS

I run Windows, Linux, BeOS, BSD, or Darwin depending on my mood.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
or our president,

That I will agree in part on. The main choices are not really choices at all. But alot of people will choose from one of those two choices simply because to not do so would seem to be throwing their vote away.[Myself included. :( Gotta get Bush out. Then see to voting of concience.] Nader has always has interesting and even apealing views and standpoints to the average joe. But this time especially he has little or no backing. What's the solution? Democratic government and voting with socialist campaigns?


Originally posted by Fredledingue
we can't realy choose our bread neither.

Our bread maker says otherwise. ;)

Originally posted by Fredledingue
You can choose to have cheaper, whealthier and better bread by doing it yourself. Like the internet comunity is doing.

That is still a choice though. :D

[Mug Funky]

Nader has always has interesting and even apealing views and standpoints to the average joe. But this time especially he has little or no backing.

i wish the Green movement had more backing. indeed, the only 2 elections i've been eligible to vote at (i'm 22 at the end of the month), i've voted Green simply because i knew the candidate (in one case it was my brother... kinda hard to vote against him) and knew their preferences were _not_ going to the horrible Liberals. but in the end a conscience vote is a half vote - everyone votes 2-party preferred, and not backing one of them is not much help. preferences help - when i was overseeing vote counting at the last election i noted that about 30% of voters chose the numbers that came on their how-to-vote card. but the informal vote (ie, writing nothing, or perhaps a comment like "they're all f***ers, why f***ing bother?") was very high too (5% from memory, which is higher than one of the candidates got, at 2%).

it's horrible to conclude that most people feel they _can't_ choose their elected leader. it makes a mockery of democracy. the Athenians would all vote on each law passed rather than their leader. of course that's not practical today, but some form of compromise would work well.

perhaps there should be buttons on TV remotes that allow people to vote on government decisions?

[Fredledingue]

Originally posted by Fredledingue
Windows whould be made public domain.

Why? Because once M$ has cashed in 100x developement and marketing cost, the company could make W98, nt and 2000 and soon XP public domain.
I mean giving it for free because that's something of public utility. If poeple want the last windows update, then they pay.

You don't realy choose your OS according to your mood but according to your needs, and very often you need Windooz cuz other OS won't support some softwares you realy need.
You will be realy able to choose of OS when you can pick 3 diffrent OS brands, and run all the windows based programs and documents without thinking compatibility.

Windows is not only an OS to run some hard drives, it's the .doc, .jpg, .tif, .txt, .xls, etc that became the norm and that everybody need to open and be fully compatible with.

That's why I think these stuff, when 100% of computer users need them, should become not only open source, but public domain.

Poeple will still be paying for update, the stuffs that are added/changed/improved in the OS, not for the basic 10 yeras old windows that XP still is.
That will urge M$ to realy work on an improved interface if they want to sell (I think XP is worse as an interface than 98) and not only a huge bundle of anti-crash programs that are obsolete after two years.

M$ is not geting money for an improved product or service but because theyr products are not free.
M$ developement could stagnate 100 years, in 100 years they will still make billions for a software designed today.
With automatic public-domaining this would change.



Monopolies and the IP mafia will earn money regardless of most of what consumers do. It can't be used to justify piracy. There is no justification for piracy.


Who are talking about piracy? Those who say that recording a cassette from crapy FM radio is piracy?
If the music is available for free in some form or quality it means that this form and quality of music is worth nothing.
Nobody would give it away for free if it was worth something.

What is worth some money, is the case, the material CD inside, the booklet with the lyrics etc, eventualy the pleasure to talk with the store seller, not the fun of downloading a 5Mb file that will clogg my hard drive if I don't buy a CD-r to burn it on.

Poeple are paying for theyr internet connections, they are paying for writable CD's, they are paying for theyr cd burner, ...hey I think they paid enough for theyr piece of mp3 music. And you call them pirate?

[Fredledingue]

I get very few ads everywhere I go on the net

I'm NOT against adds. I do apreciate add-free site, but I apreciate even more to read theyr content for free. And many companies apreciate puting adds on the sites also.

What I mean is that if all the medias become pay-per-view, , then, adds will be added eventhought you are paying for the content because there won't be no more concurence between add and no-add chanels, nor between pay and no-pay chanels because all the chanels will be add+pay chanels.

That's what I'm afraid of.

[Fredledingue]

I said

M$ is not geting money for an improved product or service but because theyr products are not free.
M$ developement could stagnate 100 years, in 100 years they will still make billions for a software designed today.
With automatic public-domaining this would change

It's in the case of obvious monopoly like M$, when the rule of concurence is not working anymore for a competitive research and developement for better products. Then the rule of public-domaining will replace it.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Fredledingue
Why? Because once M$ has cashed in 100x developement and marketing cost, the company could make W98, nt and 2000 and soon XP public domain. I mean giving it for free because that's something of public utility. If poeple want the last windows update, then they pay.

You still don't get it do you? Let me put it another way. It is because Microsoft is what it is that opensource is what it is. Just because something is opensource does not mean it is free. [you can actually license the MS Windows code under a "form" of opensource license at this time] And just because something is closed source does not mean it costs. If Windows were to become opensource in the way you desire it would kill all current opensource intitiatives for the most part. Opensource exists largely to fill the gap Microsoft creates. Open standards, open platforms, and open protocols. But opening the source does not mean you give up control. Microsoft will still have control. And they will have wiped out basically all their opensource competitors eliminating what choice we have now. And in the end become an even bigger monopoly. If you opened the Windows source and took control from Microsoft you would destroy Microsoft as a comapany. Without Windows Micrsoft is no one. And as much as we might like the idea destroying Microsoft doing it outright would hurt not only Microsoft but ourselves as well. Microsoft has become so invasive that it's death would at this time hurt many things. The goal should be to reign in Microsoft get them under control and let them slowly loose relivence and control. Eventually the assets they claim as their own will be dispersed throughout the capitalist economy and things will reach an equilibrium which we have never had.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
You don't realy choose your OS according to your mood but according to your needs, and very often you need Windooz cuz other OS won't support some softwares you realy need. You will be realy able to choose of OS when you can pick 3 diffrent OS brands, and run all the windows based programs and documents without thinking compatibility.

There is only one instance where I run Windows out of necessity. And that is for a few isolated PC games. Everything else I want to do can easily be done in any other operating system. So no it is really up to my mood what I run. 90% of the time lately it has been gentoo linux. 7% of the time BeOS and the remainder MS Windows. Basically any MS Office doccument I find can be handled in Open Office under any major OS including OS/2. Any media file I find can be basically played in Videolan Client or Mplayer under any major OS including OS/2. [this includes MS WIndows Media including WM9] I have very little hardware issues under non MS Windows systems as well. It is alot easier to figure out what an unknown piece of hardware is under Linux than it is under MS Windows. $cat /proc/pci|less

Originally posted by Fredledingue
Windows is not only an OS to run some hard drives, it's the .doc, .jpg, .tif, .txt, .xls, etc that became the norm and that everybody need to open and be fully compatible with.

No in that instance you are thinking of MS Office. It is a separate product from MS Windows without which you will not be able to open, view, edit, or save any *.doc/*.xls/*.ppt/*.vis even if you have the latest version of windows. You are however mistaken about *.jpg, *.tiff, *.txt, etc. Those are all open standards that Microsoft has implemented out of neccessity.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
That's why I think these stuff, when 100% of computer users need them, should become not only open source, but public domain.

Outside of a few of the MS Office formats they are all largely open standards. And in terms of the MS Office formats they are sufficinetly handled in programs like Open Office to make migration trivial and rather painless.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
Poeple will still be paying for update, the stuffs that are added/changed/improved in the OS, not for the basic 10 yeras old windows that XP still is.

Windows XP is a different code base from the 9x series. As such it is newer and not 10 years old. Windows XP is closer related to IBM's OS/2 thant it is to the 9x series truthfully speaking. And paying for "updates" is not without issue. Who decides what constitiutes an update and how much it should cost? Should owners of Windows 98 been forced to pay for 98SE? No. Should those with 98/98SE have been forced to pay for ME if they desired it? No. Rather Microsoft should have paid them. Should those running NT5[2000] be forced to pay for NT5.1[XP]? Not likely. What did they do for XP they could not have done for 2000? Nothing.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
That will urge M$ to realy work on an improved interface if they want to sell (I think XP is worse as an interface than 98) and not only a huge bundle of anti-crash programs that are obsolete after two years.

What will force Microsoft to work to improve things would be to force them to compete. And in order to do that their anti-competitive actions must be stopped and their pricing needs to be controlled. A regulated monopoly if you like. But even that is imperfect as it still keeps the smaller players from participating.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
M$ is not geting money for an improved product or service but because theyr products are not free.

Well that goes without saying. If their product were free they would get nothing.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
M$ developement could stagnate 100 years, in 100 years they will still make billions for a software designed today.

It has worked for the last 10 years. Why not the next 100?

Originally posted by Fredledingue
With automatic public-domaining this would change.

How? Public domain is not some magic bullet. It will not fix anything. Rather it will likely drastically worsen everything.

You destroy Microsoft. Who will fill in the vaccume? And will they be better?


Originally posted by Fredledingue
Who are talking about piracy? Those who say that recording a cassette from crapy FM radio is piracy? If the music is available for free in some form or quality it means that this form and quality of music is worth nothing.

But cassette tape and FM radio are not the same thing as MP3 and P2P. Therefore you can not apply values from one to the other. A cassete copy of an FM transmission is worse than the original. A coppy of a cassete to another cassete is even worse. On the other hand a copy of an MP3 is equal to the original. And you loose no quality when copying it via a P2P network. The analogy you paint is fundamentally flawed in this manner.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
Nobody would give it away for free if it was worth something.

Microsoft gives their products away for free. Are they worth something? Think about what you have said a bit.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
What is worth some money, is the case, the material CD inside, the booklet with the lyrics etc, eventualy the pleasure to talk with the store seller, not the fun of downloading a 5Mb file that will clogg my hard drive if I don't buy a CD-r to burn it on.

So you are willing to pay $13-$20 USD for a jewl case with cover art and a blank CD inside? Does what is on the CD itself mean nothing to you? Does it not have some value? I agree with you however that DRM drastically reduces it's value.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
Poeple are paying for theyr internet connections, they are paying for writable CD's, they are paying for theyr cd burner, ...hey I think they paid enough for theyr piece of mp3 music. And you call them pirate?

I don't. The music industry does. The value of an MP3 version of content is worth less than a CDDA version of the same content. Therefore I agree that it is ludicris that they charge as much or even more in some cases for an MP3 version as a CDDA version. The service they are providing has a net cost less than the service they are replacing. And as such should cost less. But it does not and that is an issue. But not a justification.

[stax76]

on sites with high niveau people who refer Microsoft with M$ have zero credibility, please stop it and get some education on sites like osnews (http://osnews.com), very technical but there might be other good sites

[Neo Neko]

I am not exactly sure what you are getting at. But just because someone reffers to Microsoft as M$ does not mean that you should disregard them. Simply it means that they have an anti-ms bias and are the perfect balance to MS funded propaganda/fud.

OS news is fine though.

[stax76]

for me simply it's an indication the writer is uneducated on the topic, most postings containing M$ contain also typical statements like "We can't realy choose our OS". I don't like the attitude bashing on MS and at the same time being totally ignorant about great open source projects like Linux, Gnome, KDE, Mono, Open Office, Mozilla and all the others

[Doom9]

I don't think that forcing any company to give things away for free is going to work.. I see it as counter productive, because making profit is what is driving the capitalist economy.

That being said, I believe we do need more government influence in technology, but not paid-off ones, rather strict anti-monopoly / cartel laws. The free market can no longer work if companies manage to buy politicians to pass laws that work to their advantage. The more patents you have, the longer they last, the more it actually hurts the free market. Technology advancement cannot work if the road to progress is a patent mindefield, leaving small innovative upcomer companies no chance to ever make it (truly innovative ideas often come from startup companies, which are more flexible and have more leeway to go into unconventional directions).

It is interesting to see that conservative politicians, who complain about liberals (be it socialists in Europe or Democrats in the US), are actually bloody liberals themselves. They are so liberal when it comes to the economy, patent and copyright laws, that they help create the very opposite of a functional free market, and the day they wake up from their dreams, they'll find themselves in a society where a working capitalistic system has been replaced by a dictatorship of the capital and where they are no longer needed. On the other hand, conservatives often want less government, yet they try to pass more and more laws in the copyright and patent areas... which means more government, and which is exactly what they blame "liberals" of trying to do.

[Mug Funky]

yes indeed. it's sad to see that government power has almost whittled away to the point where a government's function is to make things easier for their new masters - multinationals.

governments work with borders, each country has different laws, different loopholes. a multinational can simply locate it's more questionable operations in friendly countries, leading to countries bidding for corporate investment for their own gain. it's a cycle of greed that leads to _very_ consumer hostile laws being passed to secure investments (amoung other things).

privatization is a case in point. poor countries are selling off services to multinational corporations, knowing they have no control over the policies of these corporations - they are based outside and therefore above the laws of those countries (and when one thinks about it, a government service runs at a loss almost by definition, so expecting an increase of service after privatization is fallacy of the highest level).

what we are seeing is basically a return to feudalism. this is of course unsustainable considering that education is becoming globalised as well. an educated public traditionally does not like an overzealous ruling power, be it a government, a monarch or a CEO.

it is said that the world now has two superpowers - one being world public opinion (no prizes for guessing the other one).

[dragongodz]

Neo Neko - just to pick up on a few of the things you said.
"If Windows were to become opensource in the way you desire it would kill all current opensource intitiatives for the most part. Opensource exists largely to fill the gap Microsoft creates. Open standards, open platforms, and open protocols. But opening the source does not mean you give up control. Microsoft will still have control. And they will have wiped out basically all their opensource competitors eliminating what choice we have now."
i disagree. if windows was made open source with microsoft still in charge i seriously doubt you would see linux(as example) die or all the software beinf written around it. the fact of MS still being in charge would encourage people to still develop for linux. i do know what you are trying to say though. :)

"How? Public domain is not some magic bullet. It will not fix anything. Rather it will likely drastically worsen everything.
You destroy Microsoft. Who will fill in the vaccume? And will they be better?"
correct in that it would not fix the inherent problems of the way things stand. to say it would likely drastically worsen the situation is an overstatement though. again linux is a good example of opensource(and being an OS a very good example) that can work pretty well and continue to grow and improve. the truth is there is no way of knowing what it would end up like. you could end up with a linux type system where the core is the same and its mostly window dressing thats different or 30 different OS that are barely compataible with each other.

"What will force Microsoft to work to improve things would be to force them to compete. And in order to do that their anti-competitive actions must be stopped and their pricing needs to be controlled. A regulated monopoly if you like. But even that is imperfect as it still keeps the smaller players from participating."
yes stopping their anti-competitive actions is the real point now days. i disagree that would still smaller players from participating though. stopping MS from blocking/controlling markets and/or industry will give smaller players a chance to show what they can do which they dont have half the time currently.

but to sum up, no i dont think making windows open source would solve anything as its microsofts business practises that are the problem. a problem/monopoly that the general public are most likely stuck with.

Dolemite -
"for me simply it's an indication the writer is uneducated on the topic"
you are making an assumption based on 2 characters. unless you know the person then you actually know nothing about their understanding of the topic.
"most postings containing M$ contain also typical statements like "We can't realy choose our OS"."
and depending on what your intended main use for the OS use is that statement can be true. exactly how many commercial quality games are released for linux or macos ? so to fob off that statement as simply being MS bashing is ignorant of possible reasons for it.

Doom9 -
"I don't think that forcing any company to give things away for free is going to work.. I see it as counter productive, because making profit is what is driving the capitalist economy."
yes but stopping a company from giving away ,for free, things if they are doing it to block or disadvantage competition is a start.
"I believe we do need more government in technology, but not paid-off ones, rather strict anti-monopoly / cartel laws."
the problem is that too many politicians have no idea about technology. the Australian polies are a classic example of the "not a clue" set that take their cues from big business.

[dragongodz]

removed accidental double post.

[stax76]

so it's OK to write M$? Try this at quality sites like osnews and you are labeled a slashdweeb the second after (I think Doom9 is a quality site as well ;)

"how many commercial quality games are released for linux or macos ?"

more typical statements...

[dragongodz]

"so it's OK to write M$?"
no, its just not a big deal or important that some people write M$ to 99.99% of people.

"Try this at quality sites like osnews and you are labeled a slashdweeb the second after (I think Doom9 is a quality site as well ;)"
by elitest snobs perhaps ? most of us have a more understanding nature and are more concerned with the actual topic at hand than worrying about the use of 2 characters for a name. :)

"more typical statements..."
look again, its a question. one you again fob off. i have to wonder why you bothered to post in this thread since your posts are just criticing peoples use of terms or statements etc. offhand and have nothing to do with the topic. maybe you can start a special thread called "the inconsequential things i hate". :devil:

[stax76]

"by elitest snobs perhaps ?"

no, if you read such sites regularly like me you will notice the regulars don't accept that kind of expression, in case of osnews you get modded down quickly if you are not careful, the forum is very strict just like here

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by dragongodz
i disagree. if windows was made open source with microsoft still in charge i seriously doubt you would see linux(as example) die or all the software beinf written around it. the fact of MS still being in charge would encourage people to still develop for linux. i do know what you are trying to say though. :)

I never said it would kill it immediatly. But it would definatly take the wind out of the OSS sails and slow them to a crawl. One that in the end would likely lead to their death. If microsoft did not create widespread incompatability and proprietary systems alot of OSS would become redundant. And how many people honestly want to work on largely redundant projects even if they stand to make improvements in them? Not many I think.

Originally posted by dragongodz
correct in that it would not fix the inherent problems of the way things stand. to say it would likely drastically worsen the situation is an overstatement though. again linux is a good example of opensource(and being an OS a very good example) that can work pretty well and continue to grow and improve.

People might still develop it. But who will use it? That is the point. Alot of IT directers and CFOs are looking at Linux because it costs less as a whole and provides an open interoperable architechture that does not tie them down. If MS Windows were to be open, interoperable, and cost less that would remove the major factor for Linux adoption in business. And business is a big friend of Linux. Were it not for business and their donations monitary and technology wise what would projects like Linux be today? But that does not go for business alone. That would effect home users to an extent as well. By assuming that the dissappearance of Microsoft would be a good thing you are assuming that something like Linux would fill their place. Not that it would want to or really be capable.

Originally posted by dragongodz
the truth is there is no way of knowing what it would end up like. you could end up with a linux type system where the core is the same and its mostly window dressing thats different or 30 different OS that are barely compataible with each other.

Another business would take over. And if they are sufficiently big enough and move fast enough they could duplicate to a smaller extent what Microsoft did. Make no mistake. Most businesses dream about being in Microsoft's position and are envious. Those are the people most likely to take over and they are also the last people that should.

Originally posted by dragongodz
yes stopping their anti-competitive actions is the real point now days. i disagree that would still smaller players from participating though. stopping MS from blocking/controlling markets and/or industry will give smaller players a chance to show what they can do which they dont have half the time currently.

Disagree? Take a look at public utilities like power and water. They are regulated monopolies. Your mission should you choose to accept it is to outline a sucessful business plan for a public utilities start up. I have to warn you that it is well neigh impossible. But hey if it's what you want to do.

Originally posted by dragongodz
but to sum up, no i dont think making windows open source would solve anything as its microsofts business practises that are the problem. a problem/monopoly that the general public are most likely stuck with.

Actually every day that goes by sees increased angst and indignation at the expense of Microsoft. Who is not suing/ has not sued Microsoft? How many anti-trust actions are being persued against them in how many countries. Microsoft is currently on the decline. Their main product is getting decrepit and rapidly loosing relevance. Add to that they are spreading themselves rather thin. If one of their current going concerns does not yield a new monopoly soon they are going to become unprofitable. And once the dollar signs are gone from the investers eyes the putrid pile before them will look alot less appetizing.

Originally posted by dragongodz
and depending on what your intended main use for the OS use is that statement can be true. exactly how many commercial quality games are released for linux or macos ?

Lots. Most recently Unreal Tournament 2004. Actually Mac OS has more commercial games than Linux. But Mac OS has more games that the average MS Windows user could imagine. Basically almost any major commercial game that comes out for the PC has a Mac version.

Originally posted by dragongodz
yes but stopping a company from giving away ,for free, things if they are doing it to block or disadvantage competition is a start.

But how does impeeding their ability to sell deter them from giving it away. Without the ability to sell giving it away is about the only option.

Originally posted by dragongodz
the problem is that too many politicians have no idea about technology. the Australian polies are a classic example of the "not a clue" set that take their cues from big business.

Technology is not that hard to understand. You don't have to understand the 1s and 0s to understand computers. Politicians have no excuse for ignorance. And any that are do a disservice to those they serve. And anyone that elects such a person is doing disservice to themselves. So in that respect it is to bad we got Bush instead of Gore. After all Al invented the "Internet". :p

[sarahjh69]

I love the way you guys think that your voting
makes any difference in the election results.
You suspect every part of your society is corrupt
except for the counting of votes.............

In the UK the only vote that counts is the one cast
by the security forces!

[dragongodz]

"it would definatly take the wind out of the OSS sails and slow them to a crawl. One that in the end would likely lead to their death. If microsoft did not create widespread incompatability and proprietary systems alot of OSS would become redundant."
i think that is a diservice to linux and the programmers that continue to work on it. there is no definatly about it just a maybe.

"People might still develop it. But who will use it? That is the point. Alot of IT directers and CFOs are looking at Linux because it costs less as a whole and provides an open interoperable architechture that does not tie them down. If MS Windows were to be open, interoperable, and cost less that would remove the major factor for Linux adoption in business. And business is a big friend of Linux. Were it not for business and their donations monitary and technology wise what would projects like Linux be today? But that does not go for business alone. That would effect home users to an extent as well. By assuming that the dissappearance of Microsoft would be a good thing you are assuming that something like Linux would fill their place. Not that it would want to or really be capable."
who would use it ? some people still would just as programmers would still develop it further. nowhere do i asume the disapearance of MS would be a good thing by the way but tighter control over what it does, especially in regard to competition, i do.

"Another business would take over. And if they are sufficiently big enough and move fast enough they could duplicate to a smaller extent what Microsoft did. Make no mistake. Most businesses dream about being in Microsoft's position and are envious. Those are the people most likely to take over and they are also the last people that should."
i agree , that would also be a very real risk. again though one would hope that it would not be allowed to get to the monopoly status that MS has attained.

"Take a look at public utilities like power and water. They are regulated monopolies. Your mission should you choose to accept it is to outline a sucessful business plan for a public utilities start up. I have to warn you that it is well neigh impossible. But hey if it's what you want to do."
you want to compare MS to a public utility ?????? if you insist, look at telephony and home/business gas supply. in these at least there is competition that works to varying degrees.
but really MS is a software company and that is different. how about if MS was stopped from including all non essentials from windows and you had a choice when you bought the OS ? small example of what i mean. you buy windows for $xxx, when doing so you have the option of having a media player aswell for just a few $ more with a range of different ones from different companies. this gives the consumer the ability to choose the product they think more closly fits their needs, including not gettin one at all(good for if you are upgrading OS and already have a media player).

"Microsoft is currently on the decline. Their main product is getting decrepit and rapidly loosing relevance."
true to some degree in businesses(such as servers etc) but the home user mass market is still pretty well locked up. i dont see a sudden rush of people going and buying macs or linux.

"Actually Mac OS has more commercial games than Linux. But Mac OS has more games that the average MS Windows user could imagine. Basically almost any major commercial game that comes out for the PC has a Mac version."
some major games are released to mac aswell but there really is no comparison to the sheer bulk of titles for windows. there was a post on osnews(since some people seem to respect it) from a guy wanting to change OS for gaming. the general response was windows for gaming is your only realistic option.

"Technology is not that hard to understand. You don't have to understand the 1s and 0s to understand computers. Politicians have no excuse for ignorance. And any that are do a disservice to those they serve. And anyone that elects such a person is doing disservice to themselves."
its the use of technology and the uses people may wish to put it to that polies dont understand. saying they dont have any excuse and do a diservice is true but it does not make it any less real. as for electing them well unfortunatly the majority of voters dont understand these things aswell and also vote for them for other reasons. look at how suddenly huge amounts of money is suddenly pumped in to things like health and services right before an election.

all of this is way off topic of course and should probably be stopped. :D

[Wolfman]

Bad post draogongodz I cant tell what youve quoted and what is yours
(wheres the BAD post smilie?)
And anyone that elects such a person is doing disservice to themselves Oh yeah the first thing I look for in a politico is computer-savvy... VOTE for the nerd??


yes but stopping a company from giving away ,for free, things if they are doing it to block or disadvantage competition is a start. And what exactly would be the difference between selling it for a 1p and giving it away? Or should the GOv start setting prices for goods.. All browsers must cost at least $30...not likely?

While not agreeing with the number of games for linux (100:1 ratio, more like) no-one would argue that there is the same or anywhere like the number of commercial packages for lInux as there are for Windows.. there was no DVDplayer for a long time!

[dragongodz]

"Bad post draogongodz I cant tell what youve quoted and what is yours"

well the quoted comments would be those in quotation marks " :) " and then my comment below it. is leaving a gap easier for you to read ?

"And what exactly would be the difference between selling it for a 1p and giving it away? Or should the GOv start setting prices for goods.. All browsers must cost at least $30...not likely?"

price regulation actually does happen in some countries where companies purposly sell a product at a ridiculously low price to try and kill competition. if there was heavy fines for such obvious practises then the 1p example should not in 99% of cases happen.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by dragongodz
i think that is a diservice to linux and the programmers that continue to work on it. there is no definatly about it just a maybe.

It's not a disservice. It is the brutal truth. But not a disservice. Necessity is the mother of invention. Microsoft provides much of the necessity that drives OSS invention etc. With that necessity removed you would be kidding yourself to think OSS would be remotely like what it is now. People will always work on such projects. Just not with the fervor they do now.

Originally posted by dragongodz
who would use it ? some people still would just as programmers would still develop it further.

You seem to neglect the larger effect though. People will always do things and use things. Those are the sort of people the Guinnes book is for. Not for every day people other than reading. Many people in the Linux and OSS community are aiming for the average joe. This would not have been possible without Microsoft.

Originally posted by dragongodz
you want to compare MS to a public utility ?????? if you insist, look at telephony and home/business gas supply. in these at least there is competition that works to varying degrees.

I think you have missed the candor of the original comment. Which was to the solution of price control on Microsoft as a regulated monopoly and it's negative impact on smaller startup companies. The so called competition you cite is often so non-existant to not be worth mentioning. Though it is worth mentioning that in the rare occasion that they do exist that they were once part of a larger company to which their "competitors" were also part. [see the bells] There is very little competition in public utilities. When it comes to electricity we have to buy from KCP&L or use candles. There is no competitor or choice outside of generating our own. It is a similar situation with water and gas. You don't choose as you have no real choice. Phone service is a bit better. But there is still alot of price fixing and collusion there. Look to asia for what phone service could and should be like. Korea and Japan are set to run rings around the US.

Originally posted by dragongodz
true to some degree in businesses(such as servers etc) but the home user mass market is still pretty well locked up. i dont see a sudden rush of people going and buying macs or linux.

It does not have to be a rush. Nor was it an implied rush. It can be a slow inexorable path. But it is happening. And Microsoft knows it. Why else would they have stepped up the FUD? At no point in prior history has Microsoft published or funded so much FUD at any one time. And at no prior point in history has Microsoft been under such scrutiny. Microsoft has released some particularly laughable FUD about OpenOffice recently. And SCO is quite laughable as well. Many countries are imposing anti-trust litigation against Microsoft with Japan going the furthest with raiding the local offices of Microsoft and Intel. Will any of these countries be able to make a difference? Likely not. But indirectly they will. There is massive bad press for them which is making it into the hearts and minds of the people. This could spell big trouble for Microsoft etc. Dictators always hold absolute sway till the general public realises they can just throw the dictator out.

Originally posted by dragongodz
some major games are released to mac aswell but there really is no comparison to the sheer bulk of titles for windows.

Quantity never equals quality. Very few quality games fail to make it to the Mac.

Originally posted by dragongodz
its the use of technology and the uses people may wish to put it to that polies dont understand. saying they dont have any excuse and do a diservice is true but it does not make it any less real. as for electing them well unfortunatly the majority of voters dont understand these things aswell and also vote for them for other reasons. look at how suddenly huge amounts of money is suddenly pumped in to things like health and services right before an election.

Education is always an uphill battle. But it needs to be done. People are becoming aware. And as they become more aware things will improve. Our short term goal should be to remove fossils like Orin Hatch and those of similar oppinions as they only stand to dammage things further. Others are not so cluless as he. But rather afraid to contradict or speak out against an encumbant. Which is a problem in and of itself.

Originally posted by dragongodz
all of this is way off topic of course and should probably be stopped. :D

I don't see that. Microsoft wishes to make itself the central point for the new information society. So that all info flows through them and that they control it on. So on the contrary. I find it relevent.

[Mug Funky]

Originally posted by sarahjh69
I love the way you guys think that your voting
makes any difference in the election results.
You suspect every part of your society is corrupt
except for the counting of votes.............

ummm... i can't speak for the UK, but i know it's done fairly in Australia. every candidate has the right to have a scrutineer in the polling booth as votes are counted. their job is to oversee the counting and make sure all is well. if somebody drops a piece of paper the votes are re-counted. a counter will pick up a ballot that is ambiguous (maybe a smudge on a number that looks like a tick, or somebody's marked them wrong but you can see what they were trying to do) and show it to the scrutineers to get their agreement on what to do with it. every vote counts, and even informal votes are relayed to candidates if they're funny enough (the things people write on ballots are funny as hell), so even if the vote doesn't count quantitatively it'll quite possibly be noted by candidates.

i know this because i've scrutineered before, so all the above is taken from experience.

of course, i can't speak for other countries... after reading "stupid white men" and "hegemony or survival" i'm rather cynical about the US electoral process.

[Neo Neko]

Talking about political voting systems is getting off topic. And closer to violating some rules if we are not carefull. I don't think anyone in the US has held the mistaken belief that their vote counts for anything since late 2000. AFAIK it is the first or at least one of very few isolated incidents where the electoral college clearly voted against the public they represent. We the people don't elect the president. It is the electroal college that elects the president. They are supposed to represent the public they represent. Which is where our votes should count. The whole hanging chad thing, absentee balot issue, etc is purely secondary to the electoral college. They don't mean a thing when the electoral college ignores them in the first place. I don't think the answer lies in abolishing the electoral college. But increasing their number so they are harder to control and will average themselves out better.

[Mug Funky]

yes, definitely drifted off the topic here... sorry.

it goes to show there's a lot simmering underneath the surface amound net communities, as political discussion is a no-no in most places (except political discussion forums...).

as far as the information society goes, the internet is probably going to split right down the middle into l33t and commercial, free love and DRM. p2p networks are becoming extremely hard to kill, and there's a LOT of underground for things to be driven into.

it'll probably be a matter of the DRM guys and the l33t hack3rz in a constant arms race.

[Fredledingue]

Neo Neko,

By "you can't realy chose your OS" I meant that most of poeple buying a comp get Windows+Office with it. I let the Mac things apart here, because Mac is something else, but yes, you can buy a PC or a Mac, your choice.
I mean, you can get another OS and all the soft that will do all you need, but only if you realy mean it.

I intentionaly mixed windows OS and MS-Office because one doesn't go without the other, practicaly.
I don't know many poeple who have Windows and no MS-Office installed. With windows+office, it's relatively easy to open and work with any wellknown formats, lest pdf and mov. Can You say the same with Linux, from a n00b strating point?
Why do many poeple througout the world, still prefer a pirated Windows to a free Linux? Ignorance? Maybe. But somehow they feel they need windows.

-----------------
Paying for the upgrade, and not for the basic OS, would solve the dependency on pay-Windows. Poeple don't care about open sources. Poeple don't care if XP is closer to OS-2 than W98 at the microscopic scale.
Poeple have to buy windows, that's all.

I'm not for "killing" M$. My point is especialy, that, if the basic OS, let say XP, was free after 5 years, M$ would be obliged to charge for the accessories such as the infamous WMP.
That would prevent theyr anti-concurence software bundling practice.

------------------

Dolomite

What's the problem with M$? With M$ everybody knows what I mean. And everybody knows Microsoft is connected with big bucks.
I realy don't see the point here.

[Fredledingue]

On the other hand a copy of an MP3 is equal to the original. And you loose no quality when copying it via a P2P network. The analogy you paint is fundamentally flawed in this manner.

That's not what I wanted to say, but you agree, after, at the end of your post about what I meant. :)
I don't see the real difference between radio and hunting mp3 on the net. Of course mp3 is better, but it's still not an audio CD ready in the hand.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Fredledingue
Nobody would give it away for free if it was worth something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Microsoft gives their products away for free. Are they worth something? Think about what you have said a bit.


Well, if M$ (sorry Dolomite, can't help it :) ) gives something away for free, I regret to say the the commercial value of this thing is nihl.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Fredledingue
What is worth some money, is the case, the material CD inside, the booklet with the lyrics etc, eventualy the pleasure to talk with the store seller, not the fun of downloading a 5Mb file that will clogg my hard drive if I don't buy a CD-r to burn it on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So you are willing to pay $13-$20 USD for a jewl case with cover art and a blank CD inside? Does what is on the CD itself mean nothing to you? Does it not have some value? I agree with you however that DRM drastically reduces it's value.



Hey, maybe not $20, because I still will have a black CD. What I want is the music CD in its jewel case.
About author rights, that's the last point: we owe them sothing even if the support is low bitrate and virtual. But how much that's the question.

[Fredledingue]

Am I dreaming?

"Now that you made the necessary preparation to migrate from Windows to Linux in Part I, you are ready to complete the move. THG offers a step-by-step Linux installation how-to, complete with screenshots and videos, to guide you on your path to Windows independence."

So what else, do I need to instal Linux? 10 Yoga sessions? :rolleyes: I thought that now you just had to pop in an installation cd and it all goes like windows...

Talking about choosing your OS...

:o

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Fredledingue
By "you can't realy chose your OS" I meant that most of poeple buying a comp get Windows+Office with it. I let the Mac things apart here, because Mac is something else, but yes, you can buy a PC or a Mac, your choice.

Since when were a PC and a Mac two different things? PC stands for personal computer. As such Mac qualifies. As such Amigas qualify. As such Alphas qualify. As such Itaniums qualify. And granted teh choice is not large. But it is there and getting bigger. All those people that Microsoft once offended are beginning to line themselves up behind Linux. IBM, HP, Dell, and Compaq are all preparing to offer Linux to home users as a major alternative for the first time soon. And Walmart has carried Linux PCs for years.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
I intentionaly mixed windows OS and MS-Office because one doesn't go without the other, practicaly.

You neglect MS office for the Mac. Microsoft makes a bundle selling MS Office instalations for Mac.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
I don't know many poeple who have Windows and no MS-Office installed. With windows+office, it's relatively easy to open and work with any wellknown formats, lest pdf and mov. Can You say the same with Linux, from a n00b strating point?

Yes. Linux is far better than MS Windows in that respect. $50 USD for the latest version of Mandrake/Redhat/SuSE and it will do all that out of the box with the basic install. And even the install process is better than MS Windows.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
Why do many poeple througout the world, still prefer a pirated Windows to a free Linux? Ignorance? Maybe. But somehow they feel they need windows.

Feeling a "need" for MS Windows relates to ignorance as well.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
Paying for the upgrade, and not for the basic OS, would solve the dependency on pay-Windows. Poeple don't care about open sources. Poeple don't care if XP is closer to OS-2 than W98 at the microscopic scale. Poeple have to buy windows, that's all.

If there was ever a time that could not have been less true it would be now. You are still justifying your argument using "Micro-Think" that Microsoft has pounded into you over the years.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
I'm not for "killing" M$. My point is especialy, that, if the basic OS, let say XP, was free after 5 years, M$ would be obliged to charge for the accessories such as the infamous WMP. That would prevent theyr anti-concurence software bundling practice.

That is the same thing as killing Microsoft. How much money do you think Microsoft makes on Windows Media? -1,000,000? -15,000,000? -40,000,000? If Microsoft had to charge for Windows Media and people had to install it separatly then very few people would honestly use it. Think about it. It is only via the fact that they give it away for free and it comes bundled with MS Windows that everyone uses it.

Oh and it is not "Windows" it is "MS Windows" or "Microsoft Windows". Just like it's not "Office" but "Microsoft Office". Don't facilitate Microsoft's persecution of future companies in your country by perpetuating that myth. Microsoft has no right to such general terminology in any language. Even though Lindows is not Lindos [suck on that Microsoft] there will be others.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Fredledingue
That's not what I wanted to say, but you agree, after, at the end of your post about what I meant. :)
I don't see the real difference between radio and hunting mp3 on the net. Of course mp3 is better, but it's still not an audio CD ready in the hand.

No sorry I still don't agree. Radio stations pay a fee to play and broadcast their music. P2P users do not. That is why P2P can in no way be compared to radio.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
Well, if M$ (sorry Dolomite, can't help it :) ) gives something away for free, I regret to say the the commercial value of this thing is nihl.

So if someone gives away a hummer in a contest all hummers everywhere automatically become worthless? Id like to see you explain that as you try to drive it off the show room floor.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
Hey, maybe not $20, because I still will have a black CD. What I want is the music CD in its jewel case.

Bingo! It is the content that you say is worthless that you would buy the CD for. All the other niceties are secondary. It is the content that you buy it for.

Originally posted by Fredledingue
About author rights, that's the last point: we owe them sothing even if the support is low bitrate and virtual. But how much that's the question.

The answer is alot less than 99 cents and a helluva lot less than the $2.50 the RIAA has proposed to charge per online song.

[Fredledingue]

No sorry I still don't agree. Radio stations pay a fee to play and broadcast their music. P2P users do not. That is why P2P can in no way be compared to radio.

Certainly. Now the question, why on the radio, it's the radio station that pay the royalties, and on the internet, it's the listener who have to pay them? And don't say theyr sites are not add-supported.

On one hand I agree that with an mp3, you have something that you can replay as many times as you want while with radio, the song is only playing once.
On the other hand why isn't the advertisement business not doing its job here? You can visit almost every site on the net, read thousands of textes, see thousands of pictures for free and keep them on your HD, but when it comes to music it's not free anymore. Why?

P2P are not legal because they are not licensed, but why should we pay for that?

[r6d2]

This is an old but interesting thread. Maybe you are interested on this book:

http://free-culture.org/freecontent/

Just my 2c

Regards,