Although few make every effort to make us believe that sharing is tantamount to stealing and is illegal in our country this is not so. Share music files, movies or what we want through the Internet is as legal as you leave a disc to a friend or take it borrowed from the library, provided it does not make a profit n'intenti economy.
The aMule is a computer program that is responsible for a share of the value of activity-friendly and fast, which has a variety of files of all types, including movies and CDs out of print. Downloads and P2P are able to enjoy these works with great ease of access and free. The aMule is in Catalan, is for Linux, Windows and Mac and can be downloaded from the website, the free encyclopedia.
This program is free software. This means that anyone can see how it is made, modify the code to suit your needs, share it with your neighbors and download Internet without restrictions.
Article published in the newspaper "The Bike", Issue 8 (November 2009)
What is unfortunate is that we have always coming to fucking theme: patents. You should urgently change law on patents is not so good as to use them in cultural matters. There is no sense to impose restrictions on sharing music, movies or books. Do not you want people to be intelligent and educated? I am of the opinion that musicians make a living doing concerts (and not selling records, where the money goes to the record label) and the actors themselves to make the film and theater (and not selling movies). Therefore, we could cancel the patents on cultural issues, or at least, limit the time to patent a few years or something. Thus, we could use the aMule without feeling that we are doing something wrong. It is clear that culture can not be played!
Hi Roger, very good reflection of what you do. But the question comes in mind about how you can earn a living writer, making conferences? Marla is the only point that I hung in your argument.
Anyway what does it intolerable is that those who earn more dedicated to the task of marketing the writer is dedicated to making creative work. In any case, a writer can always earn money by printing the book in a format comfortable, beautiful and portable, and remove mediators out a very attractive where people, for little difference between print the book and have it already printed, he will buy it printed. We can also download the book online, and need to make a donation (from 0 € up to when they want) would be a bit like what Radiohead did with their latest album, which allowed to donate to download it Internet. To remove from about the middlemen, they earn more money than if it had been sold in traditional record stores.
Hi William. The comment about the books you are absolutely right. Although very few writers can make a living selling their books (unless it is a best seller, very difficult to get enough money to earn as much money from the book go to the publisher) it is true that no licenses will be very difficult to monetize. We therefore propose intermediate solutions such as patent a few years (one or two, so that the author may receive a certain amount of profit), or even the solution you propose (which had not intended, and is good!) internet download in exchange for donations regonegui where the work done. I still think that something has to change the patent, and the sooner the better change!
I think we're in the hole that the arguments of Roger is not really as important as, unlike music or movies, the flow of books online is not very abundant due to the discomfort of reading them online or have them printed.
I am not saying that absence, but not so widespread. The other day I wanted to download a book I needed and I had God and help!
So I think the patent debate should focus more on movies and music, which are the two Internet giants.
You are right to say that this patent. It would be an issue also write an article. I've always thought that the fact that there have patents, today, is completely unjustifiable, since they have the economic exploitation rights on a patent could only make sense if someone invented from scratch something completely new, but this today, and formerly also not, because everyone knows that knowledge builds on prior knowledge, and who says otherwise is very innocent.
Anyway, if you mathbf well as Roger says that a company has the exclusive rights of economic exploitation for 6 months, for example, from beginning to market the product, since this will aventatja competitive on the other company at this time, if you know how to use, will be enormous, and when humanity can benefit from science and not as now, the period of patent exclusivity for 75 years since returning in some countries.
Also, remember, as Stallman says in his book Free Software, Free Society (Free Software, Free Society, which larger companies are the only ones that can really compete in an economy of patents, as large companies generally share patents including small and can not compete. In addition, a large company in the field of patents on software (which is not nonsense?) We put in case, you can remove patent 7000 year, and such, patents can be exchanged with another company competing in the same scale not crush each other, however, a small company that can make only 5 patents a year, because I will say you can redeem, much less, sell and exploit their own patents, without the need patens that larger companies have developed.
For such is clearly a system that only benefits large corporations. Moreover, according to an Australian government study shows that the patent system was detrimental for the evolution of humanity, and that if not for Benfica who make the big companies would not have reason to exist.
Patents, as is currently planned, only favor big business.
I would not have to troll in a case like this that arouses so much sensitivity, but seems to me that the situation is complex and must consider each case without generalize well. Firstly, you need to know that intellectual property is a very broad concept under different legal regimes (not the same patent that a copyright, a designation of origin, etc.,,)
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propiedad_intelectual
Secondly I do not think you can simplify by saying that all intellectual property is wrong and must disappear, in fact often be useful as an example the reaction of the proposals Estallman the Swedish Pirate Party
http://www.somgnu.cat/2009/07/27/com-afectaria-al-programari-lliure-la-politica-del-partit-pirata-suec/
I think the solution involves a complete reform of the legal systems of intellectual property and not to a disappearance of this, on this subject I recommend reading the book Free Culture Leassing
http://www.elastico.net/archives/001222.html