I love this article for its irony, intentional or no.
The author cites perfect examples of why the software industry is exactly like Hollywood with its products. Word? Need a license key. Can't open or save ODT files without annoying popups. Apple? Don't even try to partition the system or it will break, and don't use the software on non-Apple hardware. Certainly don't try jailbreaking it. Google? Can we talk about privacy policies?
Of course, the biggest problem is that none of those instances of software are even accessible (fully) by their users. The user can't change the software, they can't even use the software in every capacity.
So I guess the real question is, why are we still acting like Hollywood?
"Certainly don't try jailbreaking it. Google? Can we talk about privacy policies?"
Could you explain that? I've been jailbreaking for, maybe five years now, and it's very easy. And I think Google's new privacy policies are an improvement over the old.
Maybe that's your point, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Well, the Google privacy policies have been consolidated, which means less piecewise freedom for people who use one or two Google products. I, for example, use Mail and (barely) use Search. I don't need to agree to things about Google+!
And jailbreaking Apple devices, while possible and, in some cases, easy, has never been encouraged by or even considered by Apple. In order to jailbreak, you have to find exploits in the software. This is opposed to free software, where you are able to do anything you want with the phone's software from the start--no exploits, no jailbreaking, just freedom.
There are certainly ways that tech companies operate in a Hollywoodesque manner.
Apple trying to assert DMCA against jailbreaking phones is a great example. It's YOUR phone. You paid $600 for it (either over time, or up front). You should be able to do whatever you want with it.
You've made a very poor case with Google privacy policies, though. If you don't use Google+, there's no way for any of its privacy policies to affect you. If you don't like their policies, don't use their free product. Period.
In the past two years, they decided to remove my major (Computer Science) completely from the curriculum for new students (so current sophomores are unable to join the department except to minor), they cut tens of professors from the faculty, and they cut down on several other costs.
In the same time period, they spend tens of thousands of dollars redesigning the main website, several more thousand redesigning the internal student-facing website (based on Blackboard and Moodle in a bizarre zombie formation), and upgraded several nonfree services they provided (Outlook Web Access, Blackboard, Datatel). They also bought and paid for the construction of a park just south of campus, which cannot be feasibly used by students but serves to essentially advertise the university. They also purchased additional radio ads, several front-page ads in the LA Times, and well-placed billboard advertisements.
Higher education in America has made its priorities clear, I think.
I've been using ClamAV / ClamWin for several years.
It was primarily design for scanning email attachments, but the client is OK for usage on your desktop. Also, it only detects threats but doesn't clean the infected files - which is OK, because you shouldn't trust AV software to clean your files. Once your computer is compromised, you're better off formatting your hard-drive and reinstalling everything from scratch (which is why it's always a good idea to have periodic backups of your work).
How can you in one post extoll a free/open internet, and after it post links to nonfree sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Google+? Start walking the walk.
* Actors can act in non-Hollywood movies and TV shows. In fact, they can act in Creative Commons-licensed stuff, too. Why is that a problem?
* Progress? Hulu and Vevo place the same digital content we were once able to own and manipulate into chains. We are no longer even allowed to watch it at our leisure.
* Great works still happen without big industry.
I think this author doesn't understand that YC isn't attacking the idea of movies and TV shows--they're attacking the moronic copyright-related actions of the industry.
Also, rather than supporting the MPAA/RIAA industry, try checking out the Blender Foundation, Jamendo, and similar sites that stream or support free content that is licensed under Creative Commons licenses.
And of course, since software is as big an issue as creative content, it should be said that the FSF is having a donation drive currently: https://my.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom
Yesterday was a huge victory for the Internet. We fought valiantly to stop an unjust legislation that should never have even been written.
But we haven't done enough. Head to the link above (or to https://my.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom) to join the Free Software Foundation in their fight to not only stop unjust laws, but to prevent circumstances that lead to them. Our duty as citizens is not just to fight the unjust laws when they come up, but to fight against an unjust system!
