Avoiding LispWorks Personal annoyances
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: &optional combined with &rest
Next: local-time on Clozure CL windows vista 64 Can't resolve foreign symbol "gettimeofday"
From: gnubeard on 30 Sep 2009 21:59 On Sep 30, 8:54 pm, Anti Vigilante <antivigila...(a)pyrabang.com> wrote: > You know I've stayed out of this but there's a lot of 'moral high > ground' stomping going around. > > 'You didn't pay for it... you stole.' > 'You changed your C library... that's a modification of LW' > 'Pay what you get for' > > Automatons would be puzzled by this. I didn't steal it - LW gave it to me. So "C library" == LW ? Amazing. I didn't know that. Thank you Yoda. And I'm sure automatons are puzzled - must be why it took you so long to get your bearings and chime in. Thanks.
From: Tim Smith on 1 Oct 2009 01:37 In article <e4d6dd55-54f9-4079-bed5-022428eb1de8(a)j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, gnubeard <gnubeard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't steal. Stealing is not the best analogy for what you are doing. A pure free market doesn't work well for intellectual goods, such as books, music, software, and so on, because the marginal cost of making a copy is close to zero. In a pure free market (which means there would be no legal restrictions on making and distributing copies) you'd only get books and music from artists who are independently wealthy or otherwise find a patron, because trying to make money actually selling books and CDs wouldn't work. As soon as you published, the copies would start, and they would undercut you enough that you'd just never make back your initial costs. There are three ways to fix this. #1. Say "Oh well...that's life" and get by with only those who can find patronage or who make a lot of money in some non-creative endeavor producing artistic works. The result is that artistic works would essentially be free to consumers, but we would have far fewer new works produced. #2. Say "OK, so we won't use the free market to deal with deciding what art gets produced and how much artists get paid". Instead, have some kind of bureaucracy handle it. The government collects money to support artists (probably via a tax on something that roughly correlates with consumption of art, such as a media tax), and divvies it up among artists based on what consumers are consuming. So, the government would run the bittorrent trackers or the music stores, and keep track of how many times each work is downloaded, and split the tax accordingly. In a way this is a patronage system like #1, but we are all the patrons, indirectly through the government. #3. Artificially, by force of law, imbue intellectual goods with some of the characteristics of real property so as to make it work like a regular good in the free market. In particular, make it so that people can't make copies--if they want a copy, they have to get it from the artist. The approach most societies nowadays take is #3. But note that #3 is a legal fiction. It only works out fairly if we all follow the rules. Pirates aren't following the rules, and if enough people pirate, it will snowball. People will notice and think "I've got a few thousand dollars spend on my CDs and DVDs...my pirate neighbor didn't have to spend that money on DVDs, so was able to instead build a better home theater to watch his movies...why the hell I'm I spending all this money when these people are getting it or free?". This is very similar to polluters dumping trash and waste in, say, a public park or forest or lake. If only a few do it, it might annoy a few people who see it happening, and it will raise costs to the rest of us. But if a lot of people do it, it can destroy the park. That's the analogy for what you are: an intellectual polluter. -- --Tim Smith
From: gnubeard on 1 Oct 2009 03:59 On Oct 1, 3:37 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...(a)mouse-potato.com> wrote: > Stealing is not the best analogy for what you are doing. You're right. +1 points. > This is very similar to polluters dumping trash and waste in, say, a > public park or forest or lake. If only a few do it, it might annoy a few > people who see it happening, and it will raise costs to the rest of us. > But if a lot of people do it, it can destroy the park. > > That's the analogy for what you are: an intellectual polluter. Except my trash is kept in my own home, and I've put it in no public space. Thats what everyone seems to overlook, here. I've made no copies for others, distributed no "cracks" or "patches" - all I did was to discuss how to do it. So, you're wrong. -1 points. Total score: 0.
From: gnubeard on 1 Oct 2009 04:05 On Oct 1, 3:37 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...(a)mouse-potato.com> wrote: > Stealing is not the best analogy for what you are doing. You're right. +1 points. > This is very similar to polluters dumping trash and waste in, say, a > public park or forest or lake. If only a few do it, it might annoy a few > people who see it happening, and it will raise costs to the rest of us. > But if a lot of people do it, it can destroy the park. > > That's the analogy for what you are: an intellectual polluter. Except my trash is kept in my own home, and I've put it in no public space. Thats what everyone seems to overlook, here. I've made no copies for others, distributed no "cracks" or "patches" - all I did was to discuss how to do it. So, you're wrong. -1 points. Total score: 0.
From: gnubeard on 1 Oct 2009 04:15
On Oct 1, 3:37 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...(a)mouse-potato.com> wrote: > Stealing is not the best analogy for what you are doing. You're right. +1 points. > This is very similar to polluters dumping trash and waste in, say, a > public park or forest or lake. If only a few do it, it might annoy a few > people who see it happening, and it will raise costs to the rest of us. > But if a lot of people do it, it can destroy the park. > > That's the analogy for what you are: an intellectual polluter. Except my trash is kept in my own home, and I've put it in no public space. Thats what everyone seems to overlook, here. I've made no copies for others, distributed no "cracks" or "patches" - all I did was to discuss how to do it. So, you're wrong. -1 points. Total score: 0. |