Webkit (forked from KHTML) for web page rendering (powers Safari)
X11/server for compatibility with graphical applications that depend on the X server.
Amongst others. No doubt they've contributed, but a bit cheeky to say they don't want to "become the worlds developers" to say the least. I'd also wander whether any of the projects they use would actually invalidate some of the patents they hold due to prior art.
I'm guessing Lady Gaga isn't exactly poor either. So why is handing over money to her for shiny plastic disks and MP3's any less reasonable than handing over money to Amanda Palmer for...MP3's, plastic disks, vinyl records and art books? Looking at the Kickstarter tiers, the options for Amanda Palmer are actually more reasonable. $1 for the album, extra songs and backer only content? Then how are the labels getting away with 99c a song?
The only way your analogy would make sense is if the rich dude was also giving new sports cars to those who backed him, at a more reasonable price than most other dealers would sell them at. I'm really not sure how that'd be a bad thing.
It's one thing when you're making money touring, album sales, merch, etc. and quite another when you're asking for money.
Which completely misses the point of Kickstarter. By definition of being a backer, you get albums and merch for paying. Even the lowest tier gives you the (presumably MP3 or FLAC when it's out) album and other content only for those who backed. All above tiers come with additional content and merchandise.
Your entire ranting against her then is based on ignorance that can be cleared up simply by bothering to read the Kickstarter page to find out what the money is actually going towards.
Press Release: Pharmaceutical companies continue to claim that high research and development (R&D) costs make it necessary for them to charge high prices and retain long ownership of patents to recoup costs. But a new study (subscription required) co-authored by health economists Rebecca Warburton and Donald W. Light demonstrates that high R&D estimates have been constructed by industry-supported economists to support the companiesí claims.
The widely accepted figure promoted by industry-supported economists is $1.3 billion to discover and develop a new drug. This estimate, however, was done on a costly subsample and then generalized to all drugs, inflating the estimate for the average new drug by about 7 fold.
And this too:
Yet the tests go on. Why? The sad truth is that the upward spiral of drug development costs in recent years in intimately tied to the drug industry's desperation to replace blockbuster drugs coming off patent with comparable drugs that may provide another 20 years of market exclusivity (and thus marketability), but not much else.
This trend, noted in the GAO report, led the auditors to conclude that the nation's patent laws were one of areas in need of reform if industry was going to refocus its attention on medically significant products. A series of laws and court rulings have given manufacturers the right to obtain new patents for minor changes in chemical structure, changes in routes of administration, and new uses for old products. These patent extenders provide substantial financial rewards to firms that focus their research attention on extending the marketability of their existing products instead of focusing on the truly new and innovative - always an inherently risky proposition.
I like how you deliberately try and exclude the "patent thicket crap". Why is that not an example? A variety of firms who have bought up large amounts of patents that don't represent any significant advances (in many cases covering already available functionality) suing each other purely to limit competitors. But for some arbitrary reasoning, that doesn't count apparently.
Mike is arguing that if a single patent, looked at individually, does not promote the progress, then the patent system is unconstitutional. That's a ridiculous argument...
It's also an argument that was never made. You may want to read the article again, extra carefully this time. What was argued was that in certain instances allowing the product to be made (and perhaps without having to pay the patent holder) should be something that can be considered as promoting the progress as well.
From the article:
To some extent, this is related again to the first item. Actually paying attention to the part in the Constitution where it says that Congress is only able to pass such laws if they "promote the progress" seems important. If you're going to allow a patent system to exist, then why shouldn't it at least be a plausible argument in a patent dispute that allowing certain products is consistent with the "progress" argument?
Weíll see more small-budget or amateur films, and fewer major studio films. These movies, he suggested, are the iconic ones that people remember and reference, so piracy may have an important cultural impact.
What's funny about this is that he takes no account of marketing. Indie films just don't have the same "cultural impact" because... well, just because. Certainly it isn't anything to do with hugely expensive marketing campaigns so people actually know about the film compared to indies without the budget.
It was argued that the VCR would kill TV because it allowed people to commit piracy, and they should be allowed to effectively ban it. It's only use as far as they were concerned was piracy. Courts ruled that time shifting was fair use, and entertainment companies made lots of money from home video regardless.
So before you claim people should move on to services that aren't pirate havens, you might want to provide the name of a service that:
a) Isn't some sort of haven to piracy
b) Is still useful to artists wanting to distribute their work for free (to them) and free of charge (to their fans)
You seriously make no sense. If someone doesn't want SOPA or SOPA style rules to be made, what about it is any different if it passes as legislation or as a back room deal? If people don't want it, then they're going to fight it regardless. Why is simply letting it pass congress without a fight any more sensible than having it brought via back room deals?
If you're going to talk about more influence over the process, well that's exactly what happened. People asserted what they wanted their representatives to do, and they got it. The fact that the MPAA/RIAA go even further into corruption to make such deals over something as unimportant as entertainment (as you stated yourself) just shows how messed up their priorities are. It's OK for them to corrupt the political process, but not for the public to tell the representatives they vote for what they want.
It's hardly a difficult concept to understand; unless, of course, one can't understand plain English in the distinction between saying all copyright is an affront to society, or that corporate lobbying for terms that go beyond the death of an author - at a minimum - are an affront to even to the original intent of copyright.
But you have a knack for missing the point, it seems. Disney may still have copyright on their works, but this doesn't mean the case for why they should still have copyright over works that are over 40 years old is a sound one, or a logically consistent one. Particularly for a company for whom significant value appears to depend on a healthy public domain.
You also (repeatedly) completely missed the point of why people were referencing stealing. People were responding to an AC that asserted infringement is akin to stealing, not necessarily claiming it to be themselves.
Why it seems to not bother you that Disney lobbies for stronger copyright laws, so that it rarely - and at this rate, it sometimes feels like it may never may never - put anything back into the public domain like the authors of whose works they borrowed from freely, eludes me.
It's also important to note that the nature of open source and its wide use is that it also helps further blur the distinction between creator and consumer. Facebook, Twitter and many others don't just use it, they also produce it and contribute to other projects.
The idea that open source is limited to just a few small companies in their own play area is naive at best.
Says the guy consistently substituting the labels for "artists". Nobody said anything about artists themselves, only the labels who are the ones making the demands. Artists it appears have nothing to do with this fight other than getting the change from the labels pockets after they've had their hefty cut.
From the linked article on the labels demands:
General deal structure: Pay the largest of A) Pro-rata share of minimum of $X per subscriber, B) Per-play costs at $Y per play, C) Z percent of total company revenue, regardless of other business areas. As stated previously, this means labels de facto set retail price (they also regularly negotiate floors on price, giving even less wiggle room), which limits the ability of the music service to develop ancillary revenue streams that arenít siphoned off by the labels.
Labels receive equity stake. Not only do labels get to set the price on the service, they also get partial ownership of the company.
Non-disclosure. Every contract has strict language prohibiting the digital music company from revealing what they pay to the labels. If they speak publicly about any of the licensing terms, they jeopardize invalidating their license which would torpedo their business. Since labels license on behalf of the artists any payment to the artist comes from the labels not the digital music company. This is the main reason music services, not the labels, have been getting heat from the artist community. Music services canít defend against accusations about low artist payments because they pay the labels who donít disclose what theyíre paying to the artists.