Muzys = Abandonware?

[Mighty Pea]

your mentality is shown by your signature, immature!!!

Ah, yes. My signature is part of a texture of a videogame. Surely, videogames are tools of FILTHY WESTERN SCUM!! raah. and all that?
Seriously though, i might've came across as being a tad angry, but i have had it with these sort of statements. Every person that i've ever caught uttering statements such as these (and i enjoy a bit of a non-commercial attitude myself... in addition to my immature one, as you so succinctly managed to put it) was the sort of twat who thought he'd change the world by not voting, or smoking large amounts of weed.
I might be wrong about you, and the fact you did a bit of an about-face in admitting you might be overly (or uncommonly, to put it more respectfully) idealistic.

And as i said, i follow you in your ideals up to a certain point, but i don't believe everything should be free. I for one enjoy the technological progress we've made, and fully realise this wouldn't have been the case if it wasn't for a modern economy, rather than trading corn for cows, for example.
Just don't preach that attitude in any a too *pedantic* (i've always been told this was the best translation for a dutch word meaning "overeager (in a overly self-assured way) to teach people your ideas of what is right or wrong, is there anything more applicable?) way where people make what little money they make off of the software they make, as i'm sure must be the case for many who frequent these forums.

[james0tucson]

I see copyright like the lock on my frontdoor

With that approach, you will never break away from the view that copyright and property laws are equivalent, and thus, will never understand copyright.

Do you understand metaphor?

Yes, and I understand that when a metaphor is a poor fit, it can be dangerous.

Do you understand the GPL?

Yes -- quite well. Read it. It's not difficult to understand. However, like almost all other software licenses, it has no meaning at all without copyright.

"like" is not "the same as" or "equivalent to", necessarily.



Copyright merely deters people.
[/quote]

Copyright allows an author to grant limited rights while retaining others. Even if people are not "deterred", the author still retains these rights.

[kaden]

It's theft even if it's that one part because it's the fundamental part of your creation that they stole. I remember ARP synths lost a suit against Moog for the filter they put into one of their synths, because it was specifically Moog's design. Sure you can't copyright the idea of a low-pass filter, but you can copyright the arrangement of modules that you have to create a specific low-pass filter, e.g. Moog's ladder filter arrangement.

That's the point.

'Copyright' is different from 'patent'.

Cripes

[sadhaka]

barter

Barter forces you to be part of the process of getting the things you need. If you cannot be part of this process you do without things.

like food, cloths, water? not really possible.

I don't disagree, but I have bartered water. My land has a well that feeds the co-op water supply in my hometown. I do not ask that they pay me for it, I traded water for other consideration.

I have seen the barter system work among an alternative society, but food was not part of the economy. In order for this sort of thing to work, everyone involved has to be into it.

my apologies i thought you were having a 'dig'!
that's it though isn't it, why live in a way that isn't conducive to a peaceful way of life? there's too many selfish people out there, i don't mean to say they're all on kvr, but every trait is owned by everyone only in varying degrees. we say we do something for this reason or that, but if you REALLY looked at your own intentions and with complete HONESTY and non-bias, you would see that you also are being selfish.

i don't mean that so much as a harsh criticism of who you are, it's just a part of everyone's being. there's plenty of good in people too and that's what everyone wants ultimately - to be free from restraints of any kind, to be happy.

anyone ever studied yoga philosophy? they believe there is no unselfish act, when you help another you do so for your own reasons, ultimately to help yourself.

maybe going on about peace is a childish thing in most peoples eyes but i'm sure the millions around the world who live in fear day after day would disagree!!

maybe expecting something for free is selfish, who knows. maybe it seems impossible for every thing to be free but only because you look at how things are RIGHT NOW. is it not possible that in the future if enough people worked towards such an ideal it could become reality, for everybody?!

[sadhaka]

was the sort of twat who thought he'd change the world by not voting, or smoking large amounts of weed.

actually i don't smoke, don't drink and don't do drugs of any kind!! never have, never will. if others want to that's there problem. and yes it is a problem for them even though they won't admit it to themselves. in moderation, anything is ok, but i've seen so many people who take drugs or smoke 'weed' and they can't control it, they think they do but they don't. and that's put me off for life.

I might be wrong about you, and the fact you did a bit of an about-face in admitting you might be overly (or uncommonly, to put it more respectfully) idealistic.

And as i said, i follow you in your ideals up to a certain point, but i don't believe everything should be free. I for one enjoy the technological progress we've made, and fully realise this wouldn't have been the case if it wasn't for a modern economy, rather than trading corn for cows, for example.

so when nano-technology advances to such a point that things can be (bit star trek this i know, but the science is based on the very possibility of becoming factual!) replicated, you'd still pay for them would you? being idealistic doesn't mean it's impossible. and yes you are wrong about me, just like it appears i was wrong about you, easy mistake to though seeing as the only contact is through written word!

Just don't preach that attitude in any a too *pedantic* (i've always been told this was the best translation for a dutch word meaning "overeager (in a overly self-assured way) to teach people your ideas of what is right or wrong, is there anything more applicable?) way where people make what little money they make off of the software they make, as i'm sure must be the case for many who frequent these forums.

i'm not preaching to anyone, you read what i write, you like or loathe it i couldn't care less. it's just nice to have a discussion, isn't it? all i did was elicit an opinion. it's blown way out of proportion because of my opinions, (good/bad?) they're just opinions. but that doesn't mean it can't be a reality.

when i was young i used to think about how the end of the world could be possible - i went to a catholic school til age of 10 - but as i grew i realised how easily it can happen. things can change so fast, especially if governments want it!!! too much power is given to them instead of the people deciding together as a unit what is best for themselves. that's right, i don't vote, mainly cos it doesn't change anything, one c**t replaces the last! i know this is going to create more shit being thrown at me but i can't explain my entire philosophy in this way it's far too deep, i wish i could maybe i'd get a fan or two, eh?! . there's no bigheadedness in there i promise.

my mind is open to all possibilities, is yours?

by the way, thanks for your apology, please accept mine

[sadhaka]

by the way pljones, thankyou for the help you gave me, the info helped alot. cheers.

No problem. The thirst for knowledge is a noble thing and we should all be helping each other by sharing rather than hindering development by hiding. But such is life...

EXACTLY!!!! SHARING, NOT CHARGING!!!!

[Chris Roberson]

It's theft even if it's that one part because it's the fundamental part of your creation that they stole. I remember ARP synths lost a suit against Moog for the filter they put into one of their synths, because it was specifically Moog's design. Sure you can't copyright the idea of a low-pass filter, but you can copyright the arrangement of modules that you have to create a specific low-pass filter, e.g. Moog's ladder filter arrangement.

That's the point.

'Copyright' is different from 'patent'.

Cripes

But at the end of the day, you still can push the same legalities with it.

[pljones]

Copyright allows an author to grant limited rights while retaining others. Even if people are not "deterred", the author still retains these rights.

And the value of these rights when someone is selling something that's mine as if it were theirs? About as much as my locked front door. I still have to go after them to get recompense. I don't see what the problem with my metaphor was. Property rights - intellectual or otherwise - refer to ownership and rights of ownership. It's perfectly in order to think of similarities between the two. To refute them would be to fail to see the very basis of intellectual property in craft. And without that basis, there's very little justification for such rights.

[james0tucson]

Copyright allows an author to grant limited rights while retaining others. Even if people are not "deterred", the author still retains these rights.

And the value of these rights when someone is selling something that's mine as if it were theirs? About as much as my locked front door. I still have to go after them to get recompense.

It's pretty easy to get a court order to stop someone distributing your work. Getting monetary damages is another story, of course.

If someone comes through my locked front door without my consent, I can shoot them dead, and call the sherriff who will clean up the mess.

I don't get such a right with copyright. Door and copyright are very diffferent.

It's perfectly in order to think of similarities between the two.

"perfectly in order?" It may be satisfying, but it is also ignorant, and holding incorrect beliefs on a legal issue will only harm you if you ever have a need to *actually* understand the issue.

[shinken]

example: you write a program, say, a new vst synth that has unique characteristics that no-one has thought of.

For me this is the crux of the problem. Everything you can program is merely a sort of remix: a derivative work based on the innovations of others. Your programming is nothing more than applied mathematics. If you do a version of sleng teng, with a twist, will you be sent to hell with all the vampire bats, pirates, freeloaders and bootleggers?

[pljones]

If someone comes through my locked front door without my consent, I can shoot them dead, and call the sherriff who will clean up the mess.

What kind of lawless third-world state do you live in..? ("Location: Tucson Arizona USA") (Oh, and the "third world" bit comes froms a quote about someone in the UK keeping a slave...) I don't think "he broke in" would keep me out of jail... Another demonstration that different jurisdictions have different views..!

"perfectly in order?" It may be satisfying, but it is also ignorant, and holding incorrect beliefs on a legal issue will only harm you if you ever have a need to *actually* understand the issue.

Assuming everywhere in the world operates the same way is also "ignorant" and holding such beliefs ends up with ... well...

[sadhaka]

Cor!!!

I started something here aint i?

you talking of shooting me now, or wot?

[Scotrick]

I am now in graduate school PhD no less, so I am pretty useless , uh, also

there, some emoticons to make us all feel better.

We are currently reading about the idea of authorship, that when we write something, create it, that it is 'ours.'

Or, to put it the way we've been using it here. Mine.

But when I say 'I wrote that code, so it's mine.' or, 'I wrote that piece of music,' so it's mine, I am leaving out an army of people how helped make my work possible. In the former example, if you are working on a computer, then you are relying on the work of lots of other coders and engineers and workers... if the piece of music was written on a guitar that I didn't build with my own two hands, then I am relying on yet another army of people...

Obvious? Yes, but what about the roads we drive on? The wires that bring us our electricity, the bricks or wood for our houses, the food that stocks the grocery store shelves. All of these things probably played a part in the creation of the composition. Or the code. Or whatever.

Western European Capitalistic thought draws a line and says, I have paid for these things, therefore I do not have to acknowledge their assistance in my creation, therefore any profit I make from my creation is mine, and mine only, to do with as I wish.

That's the system we've got, and we're stuck with it. Some brave and generous people break out of the norm, and societal norms by going 'off the grid,' growing their own food, what have you... just as there are still 'primitive societies,' around the world going without 'conveniences,' in order to live a life not governed by the abstract concepts of ownership (who owns the land of the earth?) or profit? (corporations survive only on profit, they are living entities, and if the health of the 'human,' component of a corporation is weighted against the profit the profit wins everytime. that is why there are so many disasters involving chemicals or safety recalls or whatever... it's cheaper just to pay the lawsuits than to make a better world).

The problem is at the edges of the two (as if it were such a simple dichotomy) ways of thought: free or not free, ownership or not... with non-tangible products like music and software it is hard even for a Capitalistic society to properly value them... and due to the shift to electronic delivery, the system is adjusting to new pricing structures and new levels of generosity... we'll see how it all shakes out.

All I know is that as someone who was in high school in the 80's, whether or not the software I have now sounds as good as a real Juno 106, the multi-track sequencing drum synthesizer effects samplers I have available to me overwhelms me with gratitude for living now and bitterness that I'm not coming of age NOW with all of these great tools.

patrick vickers

[sadhaka]

Western European Capitalistic thought draws a line and says, I have paid for these things, therefore I do not have to acknowledge their assistance in my creation, therefore any profit I make from my creation is mine, and mine only, to do with as I wish.

That's the system we've got, and we're stuck with it.

Why? Why are we stuck with it? only because it's easier to stick with what you know instead of making an effort to change!!

as we all know life is very complicated, especially when EVERYONE has to be taken into consideration.

Can life ever be simple and straight forward enough so we can live freely, without treading on other people's toes? in theory it's possible, but it's going to take decades, or a major 'event', to change people's awareness to include others in their thinking. only when you don't want anything can you truly be unselfish and give freely.

don't be afraid to lose what you don't own, after all, when you're dead where are your possessions or your wealth going to get you? NOWHERE...

you look too short term people...

live in the now, but be mindful of the future!

[shinken]

Why? Why are we stuck with it? only because it's easier to stick with what you know instead of making an effort to change!!

We're stuck it ("it" including our system of money - the greatest deception of all) under the threat of force: nothing more sophisticated than that. Me bash with club, take treasure. That's the "reason" or lack thereof.

don't be afraid to lose what you don't own, after all, when you're dead where are your possessions or your wealth going to get you? NOWHERE...

You're right. How much food can one man eat?

you look too short term people...

live in the now, but be mindful of the future!

If only anyone was listening... But that bloody mosquito shouts louder ("Follow the leader!") and the thoughtless fear-driven anti-reality persists.