Monday, February 12, 2007

Why Hackers are Good

As if this hasn't been presented a few hundred times before. If I had done my research properly, which I will once I have decided what I want this to address. Essentially what I want to say is that hackers not only press the buttons of the established software (and often hardware) developers, but they also quite often develop them selves the fixes to the errors that they exploit. There are many who have disagreements about this subject, and often those most opposed are those that have propriatory rights to their software. I am not reffering exclusively to the Open Software vs Propriatory software debate, but even those so called crackers, spammers, virus writers, and all the other cyber crimimals. We want to complain about them, and write about them being "evil", while we maybe should look at them differently. There is no doubt that they the wrost of the hacker persona, are attempting to steal information. This is a question of trust by the community. We don't users to fear the internet, yet we have not yet designed a way to secure the network and maintain some sort of open community. If Microsoft (and all the other software developers that desire to own the programs) had started out in the early parts of the network to open their code the Open Source would have long since found ways to use the efforts of even the worst type of "cracker" or hacker to fix the problems. Instead we now have so much that is at odds with tthe free exchange of information, copyrights, tradematrks, and all the other devices designed to prevent others from transmitting their information to any other person. I am a writer, but I feel at odds with the copyrights. On the one hand I would like to have my rights protected, but on the more rationale side I know that in truth the lmore my lwork is spread, even if others claim it as their own, the more the message gets spread. On a purely monitary stand point, the rights debate stands, it is better for the content publishers, not necessarily for the content authors.k I do believe it served a purpose at one time. I publish most every thing I write now on a web log, freely, without expectation of earning anything from my efforts. It doesn't really change my work, it only means that I have to find different ways to make money. If my blog is successful, I can host advertisements on my blog and maybe make some money there, but that doesn'treally provide enough to pay the mortgage. If I am lucky some publisher will like my work and offer to publish it in a book, and that might get me a book deal, but I really don't think I want a "book deal". I might want a book published, but let us get rid of the contract books. I don't mind the contract, but let's make it a sales contract. You agree to publish and market the book in question, I agree to let you do this for at least the next year, and if it doesn't work out for us, that's it, were done. No multiple book deals, no rights other than just first publication rights to that one book, and I will handle all the other rights. Maybe I am just as bad becuase I want to control my rights to my work, but on the other hand, I would feel that if someone took my book (say published by this publisher) and distributed under their name say in another country, I guess I should be upset, because I would lose some rights to the work, but at least my message would get out there, and that to me is more important. The trouble is I have seen that the majority of the time there are fewer people looking to steal the work of others as much as share this information with their friends. The facts that they do not want to pay the inflated prices for books, compact disc, or other materials only says that it is more an economical issue. Knowing enough about the industry I know it cost a lot to publish a book, or produce a CD, but the artist certainly doesn't get the larger share of the pie. The publisher has a lot on the line, but the artist created the work. I would rather...

Needs completion...


Sleep well...
-James-

Translate