Slashdot Mirror
Piracy vs. Privacy: MP3, Microsoft And Real People
Napster, Mp3s, & Burning CDs
I download MP3s. I burn MP3s to CD. I do not burn complete albums to CDs; I buy those, but I love to make compilation CDs. I also love the inserts and lyrics and stats on the band that come with purchasing a CD; nothing can replace that. Is that so dishonest?
I don't see what I do as so horribly wrong. I buy about three CDs per month, and I use about two BMG subscriptions per year, so I am legally purchasing between 30 and 50 CDs per year, which is a very significant portion of my income. (College income sucks, you know.) Before MP3s, I bought maybe ten CDs per year, but I made about the same amount of money.
Hmm. What's going on here? Could it be that my interests have changed? I think not. I've always loved music, and I've always had the money to buy it. The difference is, now that MP3s make it possible to hear music that horrible local radio stations would never allow me to hear, I am exposed to literally hundreds of different bands and scores of styles of music that I wasn't before. I find out about new stuff that isn't played locally, I download a few singles from the album -- and if it's worth buying, I somehow find the CD and buy it. If the album sucks, but one or two songs are good, I'll download them to my hard drive and possibly burn them to a CD of random songs that fit into that "like the song, not the album" category. Is that so wrong?
The Napster issue has been blown way out of proportion, and the music industry (read: RIAA) is only in it for money. CDs are overpriced as they are, and the price is only rising, yet people are buying more and more!
Conclusion: Napster has not only not hurt CD sales or the music industry, but I would also argue that Napster has even helped the music industry by allowing millions of users a much greater exposure to music in general, thus the increase in CD sales. Sure, CD singles sales are bound to drop, but with full albums and MP3 singles, what's so bad about that? We're not screwing them over; the music industry is screwing itself. And they're not the only ones.
The Windows milleu for real people
I never buy a brand new OS, ever. They are severely overpriced, and only businesses with their business budgets can really afford to buy them. What I do is buy Windows OSes that are a little over a year old, usually, and I get them pre-installed on a new system.
- August 1996: bought a Pentium 166 with Windows 95.
- September 1998: bought a Pentium II 300 with Windows 98.
- August 2000: bought an Athlon T'bird 800 with Windows Me.
Note that each of the above systems were fast for their time, but not the fastest, and Windows wasn't brand new (except perhaps Me) when I bought the systems, so I got great performance for decent prices.
However, when Windows 95 began to destroy my 166, I upgraded it to Windows 98 using my 300's Win98 disc. And when my dad took the 300 back in September (he let me have the fast one; yay!), he upgraded to WinMe using my system's disc. We have spent several hundreds of dollars for Windows on each computer, why should upgrading and duplicating our newer OSes be considered wrong in any way? We have paid for the products that we have. We have three Windows OSes and three systems. Let us configure them how we like. I don't think Microsoft has a problem with that.
Upgrading an OS should not cost $80, or even $40. If I buy Windows Me, and Microsoft brings out Windows Me2 [heh] a year later, a very minimal fee or no fee at all should be required to upgrade to Me2. This is already somewhat implemented through Windows Update online.)
And applications? Some applications can be priced at up to $600 for a single CD. As if someone of college age has $600 to spend on a CD. I suggest that some of these applications drop in price -- like down to $60. There we go!
Closing Arguments
WPA (Windows Product Activation) is not a bad thing. It is meant to protect Microsoft's investment in its own endeavors. Microsoft is a software developer (among other things) and has the right to implement such a feature on their own software. When we have cold, hard proof of abuse of such features, that is when we should lash out in defense. Until then, let's not get bent out of shape over hypotheticals, okay?
What a shame. Your analysis of the music industry was right on the money. But this? This is just naive rambling. The $600 applications are generally the low-volume products. If an application costs $600,000 to write, and only has a worldwide market of 1,000, how much do you expect it to cost?
If you want an application that costs $600, that's a good incentive to get a job, isn't it? ;)
Just wanted to note that most software that is truly expensive (aka the 600-3000+ range) is usually meant for business distribution and use only. The price of an OS should be low however, I must agree with that, but can you beat free? Go download a distrib of Linux and burn it and there you go, cheap and good OS.
Unlike you I do use Windows, which puts me in a good position to complain. And please spare me the tired "you don't have to buy it" falsehood. You do have to buy it if you want to run or develop certain kinds of software.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
People who assemble their own computers or otherwise purchase naked PCs may benefit from installing their copy of Windows XP to their new machine. Assuming the machine has no major parts in common with the old one the user will need a new activation code. At best it's an inconvenience, at worst you may be denied a new code.
WPA also prevents users from installing the product to two computers in the same household, unless Microsoft agrees to give you two codes.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
I think what the guy is saying is that a little bit of piracy never did anyone any harm---least of all the recording/software companies. There is a huge and (for obvious reasons) unacknowledged gulf between what M$/$ony [insert your favourite IP "robber-barons" here] say they want (in court) and what they actually want (as evinced by, say, their internal emails). Short-term, small-scale piracy often leads to long-term, large-scale sales, but no one must ever admit this in public.
When WordPerfect was the wordprocessor it suited M$ for wage slaves to copy their work Word disks onto their home machines. M$ gained no market share from this, but they did gain mindshare. As Word becomes the dominant product it makes sense for M$ to go in heavy. Once 100% of the World's population use IE, and M$ start charging for it, expect half-men-half-spare-part baldies with gratuitous LEDs and a taste for black clothing to come round to your place in a cube-shaped winnebago (sp?) and ask you why you don't want to, er, "get with the program".
Similarly, when you're an up-and-coming metal outfit hampered by embarrassing Scandinavian musician=ABBA associations you're only too grateful when people start bootlegging your demos. Later on, when you need a fjord to store your royalties, maybe your outlook changes somewhat...
This is, after all, a free market.
The operating system market is most certainly not a free market. It is a monopoly market.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
This is called piracy and it is illegal.
Quite frankly, who gives a flip if it's illegal? I break laws all the time! Do I always obey the speed limit? Of course not! No one does! Did I obey the sodomy law (back before it was repealed in this great state of Georgia)? Hell no! (I am gay.) Illegal does not imply immoral. In Georgia it is illegal for individuals to import alcohol into the state. This law was drafted by a Georgia legislator who also happens to run a liquor store. It doesn't take a genius to realize what's really going on there.
And as for your cute "Plz die thx" comment. Do you realize that this idiotic statement invalidates everything else you say? You may have had a valid point but if you're going to ask people to die, then you're going to get rightfully modded down as a troll.
This whole "music piracy" thing reminds me of a truth that needs to be repeated:
Corporations do not have a right to profit.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
WPA is a bad thing for a simple reason: it will not stop the pirates, so the only thing it accomplishes is to inhibit the actions of ordinary users.
Gun laws are a bad thing for a simple reason: they will not stop the criminals, so the only thing they accomplish is to inhibit the actions of law-abiding citizens.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
For one, it doesn't matter how many CDs you purchase a year it doesn't justify pirating ANY amount of other music.
Why is is that "music piracy" is so reviled as an evil action while the actions of the music industry, one of the most immoral industries out there (next to the software industry) is hailed as "providing a valuable service"?
Sure, CDs are overpriced and that's not good but you are still depriving the artist of their well deserved income. Buying 30 CDs a year doesn't mean anything to an artist whos CD you -didn't- buy.
Artists do not have a right to make money, much like corporations do not have a right to profit.
Without the RIAA, how the hell would any amount of artists got where they are today?
This is an ad crumenam argument.
All governing bodies have some amount of evil, and it's easy to overlook the good when all you care about is what they are depriving you of (free music).
I believe that music, like software and information, should be free. How much do you charge for something that can be duplicated infinitely at nominal cost?
What makes you think that Micorosoft should give away upgrades to their software, simply because you personally gauge the price to be too high? I know it's a fair whack, but to think that you are getting all that product (consider the developer's time that went in to making this stuff) and you just think you are welcome to free upgrades? Try that at your local car dealer...(I hate to use that analogy.. but everyone else seems to relate to it all the time...). And then, you go on to say that WPA is not a bad thing and it's Microsoft's right to include it. Two faced?
Not at all. Microsoft is a monopoly. They have to play by different rules.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion I guess, but this is clearly just a college kid that's pissed he doesn't get enough pocket money. Hardly ground breaking news Tim.
Yes. Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one, and they all stink. But there are larger issues at work here, work like monopoly power and freedom. This is hardly about poor college kids whining about not getting free stuff.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
New laws which regulate economy? You must be kidding. The single most threatening phenomenon to a free market currently is not laws or governments -- it's monopolies.
--
My brains initial response:
How'd this crap get onto Slashdot's front page?
Ok anyways..
Am I the only one who makes use of the extensive 30 second audio samples from such major online retailers as CDNow etc?
Whenever I want to hear what a song/artist sounds like, I goto CDNow and listen to the sound clips. If CDNow doesn't have the sound clip, I just search for the artist on Google. You're always bound to find it somewhere. And this is perfectly legal.
I've found indie rock artists tend to post track samples on their websites. Independent labels tend to always have audio samples. The latest mass-produced pop can be heard if you just turn on the radio.
MP3s are the last resort for me when it comes to previewing tracks. There are a wealth of resources out there which people do not take advantage of.
[insert replies below thread from bitchy linux users about how they can't listen to these audio samples because they all use "proprietary codecs from satan". ok - that's a valid argument]
I'm pretty sure that wasn't my point, but thanks anyway. I don't agree that there is an absolute need for MP3s to be available, even if music is currently hoarded in the hands of rich white guys (although some heavies in the recording industry are black too, you know). The reason that I don't think the "stolen property" think would work is because copyright law really is much different than laws governing physical property. I think you would have to have a special law about "being in possession of materials distributed in a manner infringing on copyright", and to my limited knowledge no such law exists. But this is quite the forum for me to get corrected about that :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Not quite. Copyright is being infringed by those who are making unauthorized MP3s available, not by those who download them. I won't even get into how copyright infringement isn't piracy (although you're correct that it's called piracy). You could make the argument that MP3 downloaders are receiving stolen property, but since copyright infringement isn't exactly stealing either, I don't think the analogy really works. AFAIK, there is no law that specifically applies to downloading the results of someone else's copyright infringement.
Although if the author then allowed those MP3s to be re-shared by Napster, he would indeed be guilty of copyright infringement.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Huh? How is copying songs stealing? Stealing means, by definition, taking something away from someone else (when he doesn't want you to).
Making a perfect copy of something is not stealing -- the "owner" hasn't lost his original.
Really, don't get sucked into RIAA-think. Words like "pirating" and "stealing" -- they really don't mean anything when you're talking about copying something. It's just PR people dreaming.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
> it is monumentally disrespectful to copy
> someone's work without just compensation
Think about how often you repeat someone else's words, use someone else's ideas, improve someone else's ideas, ad infinitum. If we're going to try and make property out of ideas, then we're going to bring human progress to a halt.
Bottom line: musicians will find a different way to make money; they always have. But ideas -- expressed as songs or as words -- cannot be property, and attempts to shoehorn them into becoming property will ultimately fail.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
The only problem with this arguement is that in the license agreements (which, in Canada anyway, are separate from the regular ones), you are not allowed the use the product for commercial use; it is for 'learning and demonstration use only'. So, it may free (as in cheap) but for what we are usually discussing, it ain't legal.
I think the theory behind this is if you're using it for commercial use you're making money - and if you're making money off their product, you should be able to afford to pay the full price for it. So this limitation seems perfectly reasonable to me...
indie labels, haha. Jive and No Limit are both owned by BMG. and Snoop didnt found No Limit, Masta P did.
i'm not exactly sure myself, but if you check on cdnow, and check a few no limit cds, the record label is listed as BMG/JIVE/NOVUS/SILVERTONE/let=M(for instance Mystikal). I don't know what the hell that means, but it might be because that cd might manufactured and distributed by one company, and copyrighted by No Limit.
Another thing I noticed on indie albums is that if any artist from another label collaborates with an artist from the indie (which happens basically on every hip hop cd), the track info in the cd insert will say "appears courtesy of (label) Records". The major labels control indies on many levels. . .
For one, I'm not an American.
For two, I never said they represent the artists interests I said that without the RIAA a lot of artists probably wouldn't have gotten as far as they have today. Would the record industry be so large? Would they be able to offer as many contracts (even if they are shit)?
And finally, please explain how it is -not- piracy. 3 out of 3 things wrong doesn't make for much of a retort.
It's well known by me that Microsoft go to great lengths to buffer the entire costs of software production and distribution from the consumer. Yes, Office might cost a lot of money however the average home user that pirates it is -not helping the cause-. If everyone paid for their software, it just might get cheaper. Sure, not many people will agree ("Microsoft is a tyrant! They'll charge what they like!" they will shout).
Take the Australian dollar as another example. Microsoft bore the brunt for the declining dollar for some time until it got point where they just had to increase costs. They set the rate at 65 US cents or something and it stayed there while the AU dollar fell down to as low as 55 cents before adjusting. I give them kudos for absorbing even more costs than needed to help keep software affordable for us here.
And yes, the businesses spend shit loads more than consumers do on software so they are likely targets for piracy inspections... but I think it's also because it's much easier to nab them. Imagine how hard it would be to bust the average indiviual. You need a search warrant to enter the house, while with a business you can just get the BSAA or someone to audit them. It's not financially viable to go after the individual.
One last note, I agree... more of the Windows "updates" could have been released as point releases as per your example. But, I urge you to look a little further behind the scenes at the updates to many APIs and system code that comes with the updates. It doesn't look like much on the surface, but I know how much work goes in to each update and it's quite substantial.
Back when they were trying to ban porn from the internet (I think that one has been safely won), I read an article in '.NET' magazine here in the UK. It said that although the major emphasis was on the web the real place to clean up was USENET.
Napster is really bad for downloading whole albums. It can take weeks to find all the tracks when they are not on a single machine. You are also limited to CDs you can find a track tisting for.
The RIAA should be supporting Napster over the web based alternatives. Take a look on some of the mp3 d/l websites. There are full albums up for immediate download at rates the max out my half meg cable connection. These websites have releases sometimes months in advance and are directly stopping CD sales on those titles. Where Napster encourages CD sales the web harms them.
The RIAA has forced Napster to an unusable state and in doing so made a much more damaging medium the choice of many.
Thank you. That was the argument that I wanted to make, but for some reason (I think I'm upset by Douglas Adams' passing) that it was pretty much just all swear words, and I chose to not post it.
Perhaps it may be time for Slashdot to invest in some training for their editors. Just a couple of classes on how essays should be structured and how to use a style guide might help prevent such nonsensical stuff as this from being published on the front page.
I understand they're not journalists, and I really don't have a problem with that, but there are some really basic things that they could do to prevent train wrecks like this from happening on the front page.
The Business lines, like the Poweredge and Optiplexes are a b*tch to upgrade. They are highly propriatary, much on the order of a Compaq. There's a reason for this. Most businesses want it that way. That way, their employees don't bring their ElCheapo motherboard/proc/memory/etc to work and exchange it with the good Dell one in their office machine. On the other side, the cases are engineered for quick, easy extraction of all components. This is so the IT staff doesn't have to spend thirty minutes replacing a motherboard, they spend five. Of course, if you've never dealt with one, it takes a bit to figure out all the tricks -- and every model of these machines has different tricks.
The home lines, the Diminsions, are basic ATX motherboards and cases. They are designed so that you can continually upgrade without having to go back to Dell to buy specialized components. The cases are roomy, easy to work in, and usually have extra bays. I've never experienced any problems upgrading these machines with whatever parts I pulled off the shelf.
The only reason I didn't buy a Dell the last time I bought a computer is that they wouldn't sell me a computer with the T-bird processor.
-------------------------------------------------
then why doesnt he just exert his CONSUMERNESS and not buy what he thinks is too expensive.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
i see your point. i dont think the author of the "article" really reads eulas. i say this because he thinks microsoft is ok with him paying for an oem copy of windows me and putting it on more than one computer.
:)).
back to the point. for students this is good because they can expose themselves to more software and familarize themselves with it. once they get out and get a job they will have more disposable income and can pay the full price for the software if they want. if they dont think it is worth it there are plenty of lugs out there to hook them up with linux and i would assume bsd has the same types of groups. if it is important for thier jobs many companies have site licenses. if you had to pay for it yourself i would assume you can write it off on tax day (pure speculation of course
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
you still shouldnt use something that is free as in speech in my opinion.
oops. should have been
you still should use something that is free as in speech in my opinion.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
http://media-in-transition.mit.edu/forums/copyrigh t/index_transcript.html
:wq
That is, I find myself going out and buying a cd as a direct result of downloading a song off napster. I don't download whole CD's. The few CD's which are on my computer in their entirety I ripped myself from my own collection. I find that the ratio of mp3's from CD's I don't have to mp3's that I've gone out and bought the CD's to be steadily decreasing. In my collection there's three types of songs: those that I own the CD, those that I intend to buy the CD, and those that I wouldn't ever buy anyway (like Vanilla Ice, or some crappy song you get just "for old time's sake" :-)). So, personally, my mp3 downloading habits aren't a financial risk to the RIAA at all. If nothing else, they've increased the number of CD's I've been buy (as evidenced by the growing stack of CD's on my desk that I'm too lazy to put into the CD wallet). I'm sure I'm not the only person for whom this is true.
The RIAA really should utilize the Internet rather than fight it.
-------------------------------------------
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.
-------------------------------------------
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.
-- Dr. Seuss
they're not necessarily bitching about the price of cd's just to justify their actions.
i know that i have bitched, a lot, about how much cd's cost. in fact, if one examines it, it's ludicrous and price-inflated.
my argument, however, which i still stand by, is when i see a cd by a major artist that retails around $5 or $6, i will happily not download any songs from that cd off of napster, and go out and buy it, if i like the artist.
before napster, there was no alternative to getting digital music. now that there is, people can complain, and with a purpose. perhaps if the riaa would listen to those complaints, then napster would not be such a concern.
however, they are choosing to blatantly ignore their consumer base, which is a bad idea. the reason that they're doing it, though, is the fact that, before napster, they grew used to telling people what they liked, instead of having terms dictated to them, which is the correct model for consumer interaction.
but it doesn't matter anyways, because the government is stepping in to protect the rights of the businesses from the big, bad consumers. admittedly, they're resolving the problem because it's a copyright issue, but it is more than that. the riaa could've done this themselves, if they truly had their survival as the bottom line.
"Don't take your business elsewhere."?
this is one of the cornerstones of the capitalist market. trying to play by non-capitalist rules in a capitalist market is like trying to play baseball when everyone else is playing football. what would you suggest people do? use microsoft, with all its bugs and sheer crap, for ease of use? wouldn't that mean that you were "part of a maching, however . . . useful it is"?
you understand, somehow, that the problem with the capitalist market of today is that consumers can be controlled, that they will buy whatever is put in front of them when they have money in their hands. however, it was not always thus. people used to shop for the best product they could afford. people did not buy a $2000 (or comparable before inflation) item just because it was a fad - they bought it because it would serve them, and serve them well.
however, the reason why this is, which goes beyond people who aren't smart enough not to be controlled, is that the law is on the side of the glutton. people who cannot truly run a business, but can make laws work for them, will be able to make their business survive.
the true fight, as you say, will come through the law, through the destruction of any economic hold the government has. until then, consumers will be controlled. however, refrain from giving anyone any advice beyond that statement, because you're not trying to be capitalist, in our capitalist market.
representative democracy doesn't work. i think that we all know that (forgive me if this is an incorrect assumption). candidates lie, cheat, and steal, and on the national level, you don't even know 90% of the time.
so, i don't how you can suggest that one should find a candidate to stand behind. state legislators, most of the time, are unwilling and/or unable to enact breathtaking legislation, and the only person with consistent media exposure, the president, doesn't have enough time to listen to everyone's concerns. but, like i said, both lie anyways.
it wouldn't be possible to pull the law out of government, but it seems like the best alternative, to me. then again, as you say, you have to deal with the corruption which underlies business owners and the practices to which they will revert to "force" consumers to buy their products.
in other words, it seems like corruption and getting screwed by the polical or economic system is a given. though, i hate to say that. it seems like there should be some system under which people wouldn't try to cut corners and screw other, decent people.
at any rate, the law, as far as i can tell, isn't changing any time soon. the deck is stacked, and they're holding all the cards anyways. i guess the solution is to go buy a plot of land in montana, grow your own vegetables, and destroy any record the government has of you.
Average person doesn't understand copyright, sounds exactly like the kind of thing required to get rid of the stupid law. Stallman calls for reduction, and I agree, but slow reduction must eventually lead to absolution, because copyright does not serve its purpose and people like this guy just dont want it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
hehe.. best ever.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Taking a physical thing leaves the owner with nothing.
Taking a copy of something does not affect the owner physically
They are different things, but this is not to say that copying does not diminish the original's economic value. Unfortunately, IMHO, the days when an artist could make a recording and make oodles of money are coming to an end. Oh, there will be protracted court battles for sure, but the writing is on the wall. Recorded music will simply become an advertisement for live performances, or at the best have very short lived economic value at the initial release.
This is a democracy, and you did in fact cast your vote when you bought that latest Destiny's Child cd...
Troll Like a Champion Today
Argument by anecdote... now THAT's persuasive.
*snort*
I'd think that the rather large drop-off in Napster usage since their filtering began hints strongly that an AWFUL LOT of people there were "abusing" it -- IOW, either sharing or downloading stuff that's blocked, much of it probably copyrighted pop music...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Plus, they also often offer site licensing for entire educational institutions. Companies like it when a university's willing to fork over a lot of money for software, and if that means lots of students required to use it for a class (and thus with more experience with that versus a competitor's program), so much the better.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
What the RIAA does when it overcharges is NOT robbery; after all, you're not forced to buy CDs at inflated prices. Now, what they appear to have done is price-fixing -- but that's not robbery, that's collusion, and it STILL doesn't force you to buy CDs. You buy of your own volition -- in contrast to infringement, where you rip off a company and they have absolutely no say in it.
If you don't want to pay excessive prices for CDs, you're not required to buy them -- but neither do you have some mystical right to their content.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
[Snip]
I find out about new stuff that isn't played locally, I download a few singles from the album -- and if it's worth buying, I somehow find the CD and buy it. If the album sucks, but one or two songs are good, I'll download them to my hard drive and possibly burn them to a CD of random songs that fit into that "like the song, not the album" category. Is that so wrong?
[End Snip]
I believe that it is wrong to download an mp3 of a song from a band to which you do not own the cd. If you own the cd, then this is just fair-use. One may ask why I think it is against the law to download an mp3 of a song if you don't own the cd, to which I respond: It is stealing. If you download an mp3 of a song and you do not own the cd, then you are stealing intellectual property from the owner, be it the band or the record company. It's nice that you, Crashnbur, like to preview music before you buy it, and that you find this "service" exceptionally helpful: however, it should be the bottom line of the record company or the band who made the music to have the last word on whether or not to let their music be available on the Internet in mp3 format or otherwise. Heck, if a band wanted to have 1/2 of its new cd available online for preview, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If, however, there is a band or record company that does not wish to have its music available online, what is wrong with that? Don't they have a say in their creation? In the end, it is the decision of the band or record company and not the individual user as whether or not the band's music should be online, regardless of whether it is for preview purposes or otherwise.
DeCSS and the DVD CCA is a whole 'nother matter, of least to me. I don't believe I had a license agreement with DVDs or their hardware outside of the habitual "this cannot be rebroadcast, ect." on the backside of the DVD case. Also, just because I have a link to DeCSS does not mean that I can't follow other types of contracts or licenses.
I found a link backing up my interpretation of the Microsoft license at http://nsit.uchicago.edu/msoft//terms.html.
[The following is a snippet of the page, not the whole text]
You may install the software on your machine for use while at the University of Chicago for school/work purposes - use of the software for other activities is a violation of the terms of this license. You DO NOT own the software; rather, you have a "right to use" the software while your eligibility is still valid. When your eligibility is no longer valid, you must cease use of the software covered under this agreement. You may use the products on personally-owned computers at home as long as the home computer is used regularly for University purposes and there is a legitimate copy of the software on a university-owned computer at work that is available for your use. This software is being provided for your use only, and the right to use it does not extend to the other members of your family or household.
It's called piracy by the RIAA, because the connotations obscure what is really happening, and that makes for great soundbytes. I call it duplication. Or copying. Or downloading. Whatever it is, It certainly has nothing to do with raping and pillaging villages or other boats and killing their crews and taking their gold/money/stuff. In fact, no one is out anything, except maybe the record companys who rape their artists and take their gold/money/stuff. The artist is out a bit, but if their stuff is good, I'll go to their show and/or buy a t-shirt.
Actually, "Open Source" software is copyrighted just as much as proprietary software is. The draconian parts are the facts that things like UCITA help companies with customer "lock-in", which basically makes it nearly impossible to switch to another vendors products. On the other hand, it makes warrantee clauses a requirement, which is fine for the average proprietary software developer, but it could open up small "Open Source" developers to crippling lawsuits. Very few projects would manage to survive even one such suit.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Either way, I'm glad that slashdot accepted the article, and whether you guys agree with it or not, the response that it has generated makes writing it worth it.
Or even an article that makes sense?
All I see here is a rambling few paragraphs by a college student who needs to learn how to write a paper. He goes on and on for paragraphs about mp3's then closes his statements with a few lines about XP's WPA.
There's nothing here that any of us can argue about, as there's no real point to the article!
I agree with your point. MP3s should be freely available. Our common culture is too important of a thing to let a handful of rich white businessmen make all the decisions in where that culture leads too. However there are many laws that make it illegal for you to buy stolen property and I am sure that one would apply to this or at least that there would be a legal precedent for it.
Pithy, yet ultimately meaningless, phrase expressed with gusto!
Napster has not only not hurt CD sales or the music industry, but I would also argue that Napster has even helped the music industry by allowing millions of users a much greater exposure to music in general, thus the increase in CD sales.
WPA (Windows Product Activation) is not a bad thing. It is meant to protect Microsoft's investment in its own endeavors. Microsoft is a software developer (among other things) and has the right to implement such a feature on their own software.
This is exact same arguement I've used so many times with my friends. It is my right to distibute material under the license that I want. How would you feel if I started distributing GPLd software as BSD-licensed software? I could argue that this action helps consumers in general by providing outstanding source code to the multitude of shareware and freeware developers that don't want the restrictive GPL. This is effectively what Napster and many of its users are doing to the music industry.
Companies and individuals have the right to charge whatever they want for the goods and services that they deliver. I bet not very many Slashdotters would be happy with the following statements.
Some programmers can be priced at up to $100000 for a year of work. As if companies have the money to pay $100000 to a programmer. I suggest that some of these programmers drop in price -- like down to $45 000. There we go!
I'm a burglar. I steal about 200 CDs a week. I don't know why people are complaining! It leads to more CD sales because people have to replace those CDs! So it must be good, right?
...
But the legal system isn't equipped to handle millions of cases of $150 damages. Ironically the legal system does do this for people who steal food from supermarkets, but whatever.
It comes down to this, that even microsoft would be very hard pressed to pay for the friggin' lawyers and court fees involved in prosecuting millions of people - it would totally fuck their image too.
Which is why they go after distributors and companies.
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off hyper caffineated
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
The damn cases are cramped, a bitch to work with, the power supplies are crap, limited upgradibility etc.. etc..
And you don't have to buy ms software.
Dell still has some credibility in my eyes, they have really nice cases, and fairly decent boards.
Tell me - would you ever go back to buying premade?
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off hyper caffineated
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Yes, if you are downloading MP3's of music which is under copyright. This is called piracy and it is illegal. Thank you, come again!
nal 11
Hey,
It... is... too... superficial.
Hey, Katz gets to write articles, and this is better than that, dude.
-M
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
Your webpage says you are an objectivist, a follower of Ayn Rand's philosophy. However you also say you are a Christian. A Christian Objectivist is an oxymoron.
You also say that the record companies are only in it for the money. Capitalism is one of the founding pillars of objectivism. Have you ever actually read Atlas Shrugged?
A is A
Hey! Don't use the dictionary to try to support proper usage. The dictionary is a source of usage, period, whether or not the use is proper or improper. If a word is used that way (thanks to copyright holders!!!!) it will be in the dictionary.
Don't just complain - DO something about it!
- Is it wrong for the Star Wars Holiday Special to end with C3PO advertising Star Wars toys? If not, is it wrong for MS to default windows' web browsing to Internet Explorer (as long as IE is free)? (note: this is not a comment on the morality of using a webbrowser as an operating system's main interface)
- Is it wrong for MS to offer a liscense they choose? is it wrong for them to choose to enforce that liscense with technology, if the law doesn't work?
Granted, these are disconnected... but my point is, they have the right to do all of these... because the question needn't even be about legality... handle morality first... it's their toy... if you want to play with it under the capitalist system we all live in (and, hence, sanction), we play with their toy by their rules...Same goes for music... whether or not piracy helps or hurts music companies is not the issue. The fact of the matter is that piracy is, literally, theft. You can't dance around it, even if the victim makes a profit, it isn't your right to pirate...
Like all of us, I've been wrestling with these issues for a while... No matter how I slice it, this argument doesn't work. When I was young, it was my argument, allowing me to pirate anything I wanted... but it doesn't work... I wish it did...
Also, to counter the utilitarian response, I think obeying a government's laws is binary, rather than obeying some and disregarding others... Peace
He mentioned that the wpa is ok because its only meant for real pirates. However, after viewing his os's I relised if wpa was implemented a few years ago he couldn't install windows98. Believe it or not even though his dad paid for windows98 fully, he is still pirating by using it on another system.
Microsoft would love nothing more then to drool at the thought of all teh pissed off consumers repurchasing windows for a different machine after the wpa is implemented.
What scares me is that according to www.zdnet.com there is evidence that Microsoft will no longer except licensing purchasing in the future. It looks to me that they plan a system with a monthly fee that you must upgrade to or the wpa will lock your pc. I know its mostly aimed at bussinesses but consumers would need to upgrade if they ever wanted to bring work home.
What scares the sh*t out of me is a recent article on the zdnet site where Microsoft plans to actually double the price of OfficeXP if bussinesses don't upgrade by Oct.2.
A FORCED UPGRADE!
This is a mass corporate license of course but ms would love to go after the other %30 of the pc market which is home users. I am sure ms will dangle the future windows2002.NET but in order to use it at half price, you must upgrade all your household machines and agree to a monthly fee that you can never break, and agree to upgrade ever 2 years no matter what the cost to keep the renting license.
You know what? The WPA that he has nothing agaisn't woll be the tool to prevent diafence so there is no way around it.
http://saveie6.com/
Look, I download songs from Napster all the time -- I've downloaded over one Gigabyte of them: so many, that I'm having trouble thinking of more things to download via Napigator Napster.
I don't feel guilty.
I don't feel that it's wrong.
I don't care what the minority of arrogant moralists and the RIAA say about how immoral/communistic/whatever it is.
It benefits me, so I utilize it. This is the principle of capitalism: benefit to the self. What I am doing is no different than what companies do -- whatever it takes to get an advantage, to get something cheaper, to cut costs, or cut corners, etc. Companies are only interested in what is beneficial to them: they are not interested in the law, or morality, or the rights of consumers -- the fact that companies try to form and uphold monopolies proves this(i.e., the M$ monopoly, and the RIAA-organized music-cartel). Companies do whatever they think will maximize their profits -- whether or not it is within the boundaries of the law. They do whatever they can get away with: this means price-fixing, eliminating competition, monopolistic behaviour, using 9-year olds in India for labor, whatever.
So, in conclusion, what I'm doing when I use Napster is no different than what the average company does: whatever it takes to benefit my interests. Just as the average company continues doing whatever it can to benefit its financial interests as long as it can(whetehr it be legal or not), so will I.
It is the same thing politicians do: whatever it takes to benefit their politcal interests(power), whether it be truthful or not, legal or not.
Let me repeat: I feel no guilt, no regret. What I am doing is the logical thing to do: when an opportunity presents itself with minimal risk, you grab it. In fact, if I did NOT do it, I would be a sucker -- a loser. Everyone else would be benefitting from it, but not me: that would make me a loser.
Let me explain why that would make me a loser. It actually goes back to a sophistry argument. Lets say that I find a ring which can make me invisible. Now, the most self-beneficial thing I could do with this ring would be to put it on and go around stealing from my neighbors and whatnot. For that is what other men would do in my position. And if I didn't do this, and say told someone about this ring, they would consider me a fool, and idiot, a loser: they would say, "look at this sap, he has the power to do as he will, yet he does nothing in his own interest."
Same thing with Napster: those of us who use it are benefitting because of our use of it, and those of us who don't are losing.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
The Moral Issues
IMO the author of a creative work should have the right to decide how it is to be used. If he wants to sell it, then so be it. If he wants to keep aspects of it secret, he can do that. If he wants to make it freely available to the world, he can do that too.
Probably more people agree with this idea, when it comes down to it, than one would expect from reading this discussion. Certainly nearly everyone who actually creates things does - how many times have you seen statements like "This software is hereby placed in the public domain"? Probably sometimes, but not often. Note that even free software types almost always keep control to some extent, with the GPL or BSD licence or similar.
Of course, one of the things an author can do is sell the rights to the work; indeed this is what nearly always happens, one way or another. This gives the purchaser the same moral right as the original author; yes, even if the author was stupid enough to make an unfavourable deal (that's his decision, certainly not yours).
This isn't absolute, though; it is possible to go too far. When someone else tries to force me to use their choice of operating system when watching a DVD movie of theirs (that I have purchased legitimately), that's well beyond fair control of the use of their work. When someone tells a hardware supplier they can pre-install an OS only if they do so on all the systems they produce, that's too much as well.
Such practices can themselves be considered immoral, but that does not confer any moral right on others to behave immorally towards perpetrators.
The Consequences
If Microsoft wishes to charge a lot of money, or even a lot per year, for its operating systems, that's their privilege. If you don't like it, don't steal from Microsoft; install one of the (excellent) freeware OSs. Incidentally, this has the added benefit of reducing the installed base of Windows and increasing that of freeware.
If you want to download free music, download something that the author has licensed for that. If you can't find what you like with such a licence, sorry but taking it anyway is stealing. Incidentally, do you really want to listen to someone of whose principles you disapprove?
For myself, I don't like Microsoft's licences or their lock-in tactics, so I avoid their products whenever I can. I don't use Napster; I do have a turntable connected to my sound card, and have made some MP3s from old vinyl records, for my own use only. I have a DVD-ROM drive, but won't watch movie DVDs on it until I get round to setting up a Linux based player.
freedom, n. Allowing people you don't like to do things you disapprove of.
The ideal situation from RIAA's standpoint is to make EVERYTHING pay-per-view. Every time you hear RIAA material - kaching - another monetary sum goes into the account. Gonna put that CD in the player again? Kaching! more money from you to RIAA. Tune to a station on the radio that's playing a song? Kaching! Only listened to 10 seconds of the song? Metered Kaching! Wherever MP3 files come from, someone bought the original copy to make an MP3. The pound of flesh was paid. Connection-wise, MP3 files are not a viable option for the 56k and lower crowd. Yes I can download an MP3, but it takes over 2 hours, if I do nothing else but download.
The simple existence of a monopoly, does NOT indicate a failure of a free market in any way. I don't think that there should ever be any government intervention to prevent or breakup a monopoly. I believe that the market will resolve the issue if consumers desire something else. In the case of the microsoft "monopoly", there are clearly other alternative available (linux, apple, os2), just as there were for IBM and AT&T (think cellular).
Oh wait-- the Javamen forgot the WPA program concerning their hockeysticks and so they break halfway though the game.
Penguins win again!
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The DMCA doesn't work. The current laws on the books regarding copyright are not working. I have yet to see an intelligent article regarding modifying the copyright law to correctly reflect the state of information on todays society. Pharmecutical companies manage to obtain fair use of their designer drugs for a reasonable time, and don't scream about going bankrupt because of generic knockoffs. Why can't the artists get together with the lawyers and design a business plan that gets them revenue (mainly concerts, and 1st run CD sales), but doesn't depend on a 20+ year stream of royalties for them to be financially happy. Somebody once told these folks that they record some good music, get popular, and then are set up for life. I work hard hard every day, I create wonderful peices of (networking) art. I get paid for it on the spot. I don't continue to get paid for it for the rest of my natural life just because it continues to get used. My heirs don't continue to get a stream of revenue from my endevours after I die. Worried that the artists won't have enough incentive to record more music? Well then screw 'em. Maby the current Pop stars will go get real jobs, and the only ones left recording music will be the people that are in it for the art. The copyright laws were installed while we weren't paying attention. Let's pay some attention now, and roll them back...
Microsoft provides wondrous discounts for university students and faculty. They charge $5 per CD needed. I got Visual Studio 6 for $25, since it's a 5 cd pack.
-
I find it rather strange that you would care about such a thing, considering your have a link to a mirror of DeCSS in your .sig
-
I think the analogy stands - in both cases, one is using a product for which the creator is not being compensated. Stealing is easily justified to oneself - but, as I'm seeing in this thread, very difficult to justify to others.
--
--
reverendrich.com
Crashnbur, I understand your habit of burning the couple of good tracks from each album; I myself absolutely love blue M&Ms, so I just take those from the bag and leave the store. But hey, before anyone gets upset - sometimes I buy other candy. It's all cool.
--
--
reverendrich.com
i dont know if i followed the last part of your comment, but even most open source products have warrenty clauses if i remember correctly, and even so open source can survive anything, even if a company goes down, or an individual cant maintain the software anymore, as long as there is somebody else that wants to maintain that software they can without a problem, as long as they follow the open source liscense. so no lawsuit could get rid of an open source project as far as i can see.
Unless somehow supported otherwise (such as the telephone and cable companies are^H^H^Hwere), monopolies tend to break up after about 15 years or so simply because after growing lethargic, some upstart company turns the business on its head and the old monopoly fails to respond.
"Pirate"? It's wrong to "pirate" songs you had no intention of paying for anyway at no loss (not even potential, since I.. err.. this friend of mine... had no intention of buying the entire album) to the music industry?
-- Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a rock.
Yes, there's a difference in some cases between 'right' and 'legal'. Negligence to hinder a federal offense when possible, however, is a crime so you might wish to use another example next time.
According to whom is it wrong to use software you had no way of buying (due to a small budget perhaps) free of charge? In the end someone benefits, and no one loses anything (once again; because it doesn't deprive/cost the software company [in this example] of any material or otherwise (rare) resource and since the 'free loader' wasn't going to buy the product anyway).
Now, why would it be wrong for someone to gain at no one's expense?
-- Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" until you can find a rock.
It's not that simple. Intellecutal property rights are not entirely unconditional in USA. Your constitution says that Congress shall have the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writhings and Discoveries" (8, 8). In other words: Microsoft does, at least in principle, not own Windows because it's nice for Bill Gates, but because it's assumed to further "the Progess of Science and useful Arts".
that they HAVE to buy what the RIAA/MPAA/MS sells them. if you dont want to pay for it, by all means...feel free to let it sit on the shelf of your local blockbuster, disc jockey, whatever. there are a lot of musicians who actually want you to hear their music, and they will play it for you at a local venue, and then, after the show is over, they will sell you a cd at a reasonable price. and the money goes directly to the artist. this is the real reason that the RIAA is afraid of napster, because it represents an alternative method of distribution. many of todays highest grossing tours, (Dave Matthews, Phish,Widespread Panic, Ben Harper) allowed taping in the tradition of the grateful dead, and as a result became quite successful.Napster was the perfect forum for the trading of this kind of material. Legal, free, and in every case, a lot better than the tripe that the recording industry feeds you. The problem isnt with copyright, its with the monopolistic power that the above mentioned groups have to control EVERY channel of distribution, and to squeeze not only consumers, but even retailers for every penny they have. the only recourse we have is to do without it, and we can. just ask Linus.
No, speaking from economic and business standpoint, it's much better to sell 1000 copies at 1000$ each then sell 2000 copies @ 250$ each.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
It would be *totally* legal on MS' side to prosecute every littel joe & jane that installed thier OS on his/her computer without a license.
It would also be an insanity, because it would ruin their image, and court fee for each of those traials are higher than the license, anyway.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
If a product's license denies you of basic liberties, then simply boycott the product until its seller gets the point. I understand that it takes courage and persistence, but trying to work around or circumvent something you agree to is only worse in the long run, and makes you look bad.
assholes like you are why this whole thing started... RIAA found out that there were a few of you, and consequentaly attacked all of us.
software is DEFINITELY too expensive. i'm also a college student majoring in computer art - 3d animation specifically. the software that i'm EXPECTED to know for the jobs i want all START at $3000. that's for 3d studio max. i've also seen jobs i want where maya is a requirement...that's a mere $15000 or so. i'm a college student. if i don't pirate this stuff then how the hell am i supposed to afford it and then learn it to find a job i'm happy at? i'm also with the author 100% on the mp3 thing.
My spoon is too big.
Yes, please correct it, flesh out your points in a bit more depth, and resubmit it to the queue...oh, wait. I forgot this is Slashdot and not k5.
Sorry, my mistake. The differences seem to be slowly eroding away.
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
I'm arguing this from a theoretical perspective, but I like to get my facts right, too.
The Constitution provides for the creation of the Patent Office, which is the primary protector of intellectual property rights. So the Founders clearly recognized a right to intellectual property. I'm not sure on what grounds you claim that is not a "natural" right. I think the root of property rights and intellectual property rights is the same: that the things one brings into the world, whether by physical or mental labor, should be one's own to dispose of.
I'll be interested to read the references you've mentioned, especially Jefferson's letters. I think the Supreme Court massacres the Constitution all over the place.
This is nothing but a list of rationalizations as to why you *steal* intellectual property from both the music and software industries.
You have basically listed the things you do that you know to be dishonest (and you seem pretty astute at sensing that) and then tried to come up with reasons to justify what you've done.
If you want music, buy the CD. The artist, publisher, and record company created that CD with their own sweat and toil. They own it. If you want them to allow you to use it (what buying a CD is), you should respect the terms of the transaction you undertake with them. If you think CDs are too expensive, don't buy them. And don't steal them over the Internet.
When you buy software, you agree to the terms of the license. If you violate those terms, not only are you culpable under the law, but your word is worth nothing. You have no personal honor. Someone worked hard to create something, allowed you to use what they created under certain terms, and then you spit in their face by doing whatever you wanted with it.
Nobody ever said poor people or college students are entitled to everything. That's probably part of why you're in college- so that you'll someday be able to buy the things you want. Realize that in order to consume what you want in the economy, you need to produce something to trade first.
Stop rationalizing and start respecting intellectual property. It is becoming increasingly important as more and more people's labor results in nothing but intellectual property. Not treating intellectual property with respect similar to that accorded physical property undermines the future. The more we respect intellectual property, the more of it will be available for us to enjoy and use at reasonable prices.
Look at the world of real users, they *need* to upgrade because they don't know better. It may not be an automatic yes in their eyes, but when they go to the local chain store, not only will they be forced into the latest upgrade, but also not be informed of alternatives (Linux/BSD/etc) to the package they have signed into for their great rebates to afford their new toy.
To anyone who knows better they infact do not need the upgrade, to the people who actually do the work on the systems and get a comission, they do. It's not a case of precidence of time over money, it's the case of being uninformed and undereducated, with no need to be either for their purposes.
Isn't that what laws are supposed to do? Protect the consumor from substandard products and price gouging? Protect industry from parasitic practices and competition offing?
Oh that's right, those rules don't apply, we're talking about MS.
Yeah, nice suggestion for those of us who read /. but what about the average user? Those who come home to check the latest baseball scores and send an email to aunt ethyl in florida? They are the ones being taken for the proverbial ride by companies.
Do you honestly think that the average person is going to have the patience to set up a linux box?
But really, about the Stallman's speech. When a discussion about "What Would We Do If We Had a Food Duplicator"? For a bit of perspective, only.
And yes, IMHO he whines too much.
About WPA, I'd like to make a bet. It will never exist. If MS had ever wanted to really protect Windows, they could have done ages ago via hardware, something in the keyboard cable or the paralell port or whatever. That would have stopped casual copying. They haven't done it to date, because they don't want to piss off their clients. That reason will hold now.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
For college students, most $600 software products are more affordable than for regular people looking to use them. Academic prices helps students/faculty a lot in buying cheap software, even if it's for personal use rather than for use with a class. I can testify that I could not have afforded my copy of Photoshop unless I used the education discount, bringing it down to $200. Although this may not be low, it is a lot cheaper than the $500-$600 retail version.
--
Lessig wrote an essay describing this very problem. I'm trying to dig it up, it's probably linked to lessig.org but I haven't found it yet.
Anyway, Lessig said that the problem with the RIAA, MPAA, and even Microsoft isn't a monopoly problem, it is a copyright problem. These groups have accumulated excessive influence and excessive power due to the huge amounts of money they gain from overly favorable copyrights. They use their power and money to try to get even more favorable terms to extend their powers even further (i.e. MPAA/CSS, MS/CPRM). He even suggested that the solution to these monopolies is to revoke their copyrights and give them back to the public. I endorse this concept.
I totally agree. Very few people care that piracy is illegal. Nobody cares except the RIAA or the SPAA. Most people (end-users anyway) don't even realize that software or music piracy is illegal anyway. Even if they did, they wouldn't care 2 flips about it. Why do you think that it is so widespread? In fact even some of the people who ENFORCE the laws about it don't really care. They're just doing their job. Hell, even the FBI agents pirate software and music. I would wager a guess that even the president has at least ONE pirated software prog that he didn't pay for... In fact, I have a CD of "warez" that a good friend of mine got from his buddy who is an FBI AGENT!!! (It's true, I know them both...) Go figure. In short, nobody cares but some unhappy, prudish few...who probably try and enforce the sodomy and oral sex laws too...
Now that Napster has started monitering for file names, legitimate users like me can enjoy the service without having to worry that some people are stealing software! Now people like me can trade legitimate songs, by bands like the Slashing Pumpkins, Mave Datthews Bland, and M&M. Those pirates can rot in hell.
I shouldn't rot in hell because I am the legitimate Napster user!
What? They started scanning for sonic properties of the files, too?
Sigh... I guess they have no tolerance for legit users, either.
An artist getting more money because more people buy their records isn't right. How many hours did they do this week?
Most people don't even use all the pirated software they have. Apart from Windows and Office (which can often be included with new PCs), there aren't many applications which home users get into seriously. Take Photoshop for example, someone might have it on a warez CD, install it and then use it only for viewing pictures. If it wasn't there already they wouldn't bother getting it as it isn't worth anything to them. The software used most apart from games (game copying is probably the biggest problem for industry as there are no business customers buying site licences like there is for Windows) is free (IE, Winamp, Real Jukebox etc.) Office is useful but the home user is more likely to want free web gizmos even though they are getting to be spyware these days. If somebody does use Office at home then it's likely to be for work or school purposes. This means that in many cases whatever you do isn't even your own work, it belongs to the employer. If your office is closed at 5pm and you go home and finish off some work using Office 2000, should you really have to have your own licenced copy of it? How about only requiring businesses and schools to have legal copies of software? Home users don't rely on things like Photoshop, if there was no development money left at Adobe then would Joe Average care? even if they went bust?
Just pirate..........they take enough money from you everytime you buy a cd or software anyways.....where does the money go? the corps
~~~~~~~~~~~~ALL YOUR DATA ARE BELONG TO d3b0~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's a peculiar sort of mindset that insists, "This $600 CD has the same value as this $600 computer!" when a buck's worth of plastic and cyanine dye can perfectly duplicate the former, and it'd take years of labor and piles of electronic parts to perfectly duplicate the latter- if you even could, I don't think I could build computer PC boards from scratch.
God help us when we manage to invent the Star Trek Replicator: owning one will be punishable by death. So you want to use it to replicate soup to feed your family? NO SOUP FOR YOU! :P
Yes, most college students can't afford $800 for a product such as Mathcad professional.
They should price it at like 1/6th that cost, like maybe $130!
Then maybe students could afford it. They'd learn to use it and when they graduated they might be inclined to suggest the company they work for buy it.
Oh wait, these companies already offer educational pricing...
But it's still a good argument for why they do it!
But RIAA and similar organisations do a lot to show that if you don't buy their CDs then you are a marginal, an outlaw, a freak, a antisocial abortion. Come on! You know how millions of kids are poisoned by MTVs and radio stations to buy another major singer or run for another major hit. And tell me, under these hunts after mp3.com and similars, which somehow supported independent artists, what are the remaining alternatives? Everyone needs society and society demands that you go for Manchester United, Barcelona or Chicago Bulls. Noooo, of course you are free to choose. But are these things really a choice? After I saw two member meetings at a major european club I just stopped seeing soccer at all. It is too disgusting. And that makes me an alien...
Stop playing the "good citizen" game ok? You perfectly know that we are dealing with companies who are far from being ethical. Your argumentation even shows this. You mention "overpricing". Now Mr. "Good citizen" please tell me who they overprice? The all-abstract miserable consumer? No, they overprice what I, you and Tim buy. And you perfectly know that they do not overprice for the cents but over the dollars. And this income usually does not go to artists pockets but to those of their "protectors": record companies and agents.
Frankly your comment is the typical face of that mirror that RIAA and alikes try to put on the consumer. Yeah, well CDs are overpriced but it is bad to pirate them. So RIAA and Co. can rob me and other consumers by the millions of dollars, but I should go to jail to for making an unauthorised copy costing a few dollars... XXI century Charles Dickens somewhere?
Spaniards also claimed that gold can be only of their own, but pirates should be hanged... If England had accepted such rule of the game, then the USA would be speaking spanish today. And it would have been name EUA.
You actually have the only right that matters. The right that copying can be done. Without a law, or disregarding the law, it is.
That law is trying to control natural behaviour.
Who the hell do they think they are to regulate the actions of the people by calling upon the government and their backing of deadly force?
Copyright law is a TRADE between the 'people' and the 'producers', saying that we offer them protection (which they could not expect otherwise) in trade for them producing things which we get limited access to for a while, then the full NATURAL access to.
Every idea is based off of other ones. Nobody is where they are today truly on their own. They didn't invent the language they use, the insturments they use, these are all ideas they get from the rest of society, for free, so why do they have the right to forbid other people access to their ideas?
They don't. If they don't live up to their end of the bargain, as the people wanted it, and they bribe politicians to pass stupid copyright extensions, they lose the right to claim anything. Copyright is mutually beneficial, or was. If it stops being that way, why should the people still be bound by it when the producers aren't?
Furthermore, RIAA does NOT represent artists' interests AT ALL. They represent record companies, and they buy legislation that HARMS artists (see the "work for hire" rider in the Satellite Home Viewing Improvement Act). These are the people that, by locking up the market as a cartel, demand onerous contracts in exchange for "access" to the payola market, without which an artist gets no coordinated radio exposure and no career. While it may be ethical to pay for music, the balance of evils clearly favors cutting the RIAA members out of the deal.
Why are Americans these days such unquestioning tools? Mama's-boys don't keep a free country free, and you sure aren't helping.
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
what kind of stuff do you have? email me if you want to trade.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
I suggest that some of these applications drop in price -- like down to $60. There we go!
ms offers most of their applications to students via educational discounts. not that i want to pimp off ms or anything, but if you are a student you can get (or could get when i used ms stuff) visual studio, office, etc. for about $100 each. here at university of pittsburgh they have a deal with ms. you can walk into any computer labs flash your id and walk out with office, vstudio, windows upgrades, and some other stuff. so the point is that it can be really cheap for students-free (as in beer) for some and still legal.
you still shouldnt use something that is free as in speech in my opinion.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
This is definitely true of the "consumer-grade" stuff these companies put out, but don't lump Vectras and Deskpros in with Pavilions and Presarios (and Brios, which are rebadged Pavilions for the most part). The business-grade stuff is somewhat better. (Nothing beats building your own, unless you need to send a computer a couple thousand miles to a remote location. If it breaks on the other side of the country, it's cheaper to call IBM, Compaq, or whoever and have them send their people out than to hop on a plane and fix a homebrew box.)
You must be joking. Back when I fixed computers for The Man, I always dreaded taking in Dells. I got the impression that they took whatever seconds Intel had that week and slapped them together into something that resembled a computer. Upgrading them and fixing them was a cast-iron b*tch compared to nearly anything else. I would rather have worked on Packard Bells...at least they didn't pretend to be high-end, and if you worked on enough of them, you could figure out their quirks and deal with them reasonably well.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Darn, I thought this was gonna be about that funny show NBC used to have in the late '70s.
Boy you could just cut the sexual tension between Sarah Purcell and Skip Stephenson!
Sound redundant? It is as is most of the comments on this whole Napster/RIAA issue. AgentX argues Napster is good AgentY argues it's evil.
I use Napster to often find the names of a song because I expect to buy the album and I want to be sure that I'm buying the correct album so I don't look like an ass or a thief returning it (thief being the record store is likely to hink I bought it burned it and am now returning it... I live in a big city)
So why should I not be allowed to look for songs in this method? I'm sure there are a slew of others who use Napster for similar reasons, adding validity for the uses of Napster. The whole argument is beginning to become a waste of time because when the shit hits the fan, no one is listening. Coincidently record sales have increased and not decreased since the inception of Napster.
Could it be that more people actually are using the same methods I described, hearing a cool song on Napster and buying it? Its possible but we'll never know, since the RIAA is now attempting to create its own Napster-style service for those that don't know, which is an underhanded method of calling a criminal a criminal when your doing the same shit, so any arguments can be rebutted with ease when you look at things from all perspectives.
Want Root?
It's their decision to make -- what's more important to them, time or money? And, of course, whether or not they *need* the upgrade in the first place -- and the answer is not an automatic yes.
And even if they go the Linux/BSD/etc route, nothing says that the effort has to be done by themselves.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
In 1992 Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act to (and this is off the RIAA site) "ease access to advanced digital audio recording technologies". Isn't that exactly what we are doing? I am much like Crashnbur, I am a college kid, who's music purchases has gone up simply because we can hear music that the commercial radio stations aren't playing. I buy ~30 cds a year, I rip them, I burn them to MP3 CDs, and I take them with me. Isn't this exactly what Congress foresaw? I think this is, or at least should be, well within our "fair use" rights.
-OctaneZ
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
I agree. Why is this an article? At first, it sounded like a troll, but later in the text it just sounded like a college kid trying to get moral absolution to pirate software and download music.
According to the "submit article" thing, there are 162 articles in the queue, and this gets posted?
Hey Crashnbur, among the people who decide what becomes an article on Slashdot, whose ass do you have pictures of?
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
I can't believe Slashdot refuses to run a lot of very newsworthy pieces, but they publish this crap.
I don't agree with the author at all, but I've seen much better essays that actually gave decent, well thought out arguments for these positions rather than the "I can't afford [insert application here], so therefore it must be overpriced" nonsense this person is offering.
when they go to the local chain store, not only will they be forced into the latest upgrade, but also not be informed of alternatives (Linux/BSD/etc) to the package they have signed into for their great rebates to afford their new toy.
This is ludicrous. When I go the local chain, they have numerous copies of various flavors of Unix on the shelves next to the Windows OS.
Average people like me don't buy Linux not because it's not available but a) it doesn't have the application support I need and b) it's still too complex to install/maintain for a desktop OS.
my god man! Someone who understands a free market economy! Copying music / software is *PRICE COMPETITION* in a monopoly market.
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
You'll be able to ahve them but you'll have to pay a royalty to the campbels soup consortium ... :)
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
The other artists you mentioned are on major labels (RIAA members).
It's probably true that artists (well let's face it, companies) resting on their back catalogs have the most to fear from Napster. But in the end I think society is better off if artists actually create art to get paid.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
Jive claims to be "part of the Zomba Group of Companies which is the world's largest independent music company" on their website, which oddly enough is hosted on getmusic.com, which is owned by Universal. But the MAXIMUMROCKNROLL "Who Owns Who" chart puts them under BMG as you suggested.
However, all the references to No Limit I can find on the web connect them to Virgin, which would put them under EMI/Capitol. One would think if they were owned by a major they could afford a better website, though. And you were right about it being P, not Snoop.
Thanks for setting me straight. Records labels are some fucked up shit, you know?
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
Sure, it takes some training and study in order to install and maintain a really useful open source computer. And that is the true worth of commercial software: if you are unwilling to spend time studying in order to be able to install and use open source software, then you should pay for someone to sell you a computer with pre-configured software, or for self-installing software that don't need all that "tar xzvf file.tar.gz; cd directory; ./configure; make; make install" stuff.
True. Compare what artists get from live presentations to what they get from recordings, and you will see that it's the recording that brings the cash rolling, not the performance itself. The dream of every musician at the start of his/her career is to record a song. So it's fair and reasonable that the recording industry gets the lion's share.
The companies can't do without the programmer. They will have nothing to sell. However, the college student can do without the CD. There's always something else available for him. Supply, meet mr. Demand. Watch him go away if you cost too much.
First off, excellent article - it's a bit like preaching to the converted, but nonetheless, a solid bit. A few things though:
;)
Napster has not only not hurt CD sales or the music industry, but I would also argue that Napster has even helped the music industry by allowing millions of users a much greater exposure to music in general, thus the increase in CD sales. Sure, CD singles sales are bound to drop, but with full albums and MP3 singles, what's so bad about that? We're not screwing them over; the music industry is screwing itself. And they're not the only ones.
True enough, but it's also just as easy to preview music using cdnow, amazon, etc - any of the online shops with streaming audio versions of the albums. It's also cheaper, if you decide to buy anything.
And applications? Some applications can be priced at up to $600 for a single CD. As if someone of college age has $600 to spend on a CD. I suggest that some of these applications drop in price -- like down to $60. There we go!
You said you're a college student - as long as you're still enrolled, you're eligible to purchase academic versions of software for about 50-75% off. Photoshop 6 is around $250 that way. I personally use micromaster (here) And not everyone needs photoshop
-arbitrary
However, they are careful to dance around inconsistancies, as well as nicely avoiding actually taking responsibility for anything wrong that they might be doing themselves.
The result is a pleasant mishmash of fractured logic.
The problem not spotted is that there are several layers and levels of non-ethical behavior here on the part of all concerned.
You have
- the business and marketing practices of MS. In a perfect world, MS would get fair exchange for their work and their products, and they would not see possible independance from the MS as a deathly threat to them. The flaw in the MS model is that anyone who is getting ahead who is not under their control is viewed as a threat, or a competitor. MS talks about the danger of competition. The problem here is that a number of MS flacks take this to the level approaching paranoia.
- As above for MS, but instead insert the recording and film industries.
- The individual patron of the arts and of computer products, has the ethical problem of how to deal fairly and rightly with business that have adopted some of the mafia mentality, and who have bought the law makers so that ripoffs are considered fair business practice under the law (the copyright act, etc)
It is no consolation that under innumerable religious systems such people, no matter how much they explain away their deeds and misdeeds, condemn themselves to any number of the commonly described hells, many of their own making.It is also very inviting to go ahead and go along with the petty ripoffs, because the system has been set up this way. And many common actions have been suddenly made illegal under this abusive system. this is a trap by itself.
The real ethical quandry lies in not recognizing the ethical trap that has been sprung. and then, to step into it, and then to explain away everything you are doing because of all thos bad men over there.
The real ethical solution is to recognize the trap, not step into it, and to then work with others to make a better system that is truly fair and not booby trapped for the benefit of the greedy.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
We, the listeners and "consumers" of music, suffer. Where I live, the top 19 FM radio properties are owned by 3 companies. (Infinity owns one, the rest are split between Capital Cities and Clear Channel) The situation has degenerated to the point that I simply cannot listen to radio anymore. There are only 4 stations that aren't explicitly oldies or c&w. And of those 4, 3 are Urban Pop and the fourth plays 80% old material while screaming that it's committed to "new music, new names".
It's not a coincidence that the lead singer for Coldplay sound like Dave Matthews. It's not chance that the recent Train single sounds like Hootie and the Blowfish (albeit with a full string section... ish!).
It's gotten so bad that I was actually going to write a (paper) letter to the PD of the last remaining listenable station. Only, in web-searching for her name, I turned up an interview on the Gavin site where she was discussing the consequences of aiming "downmarket" in the station's demographic. She shrugged off the upmarket attrition as a natural consequence. It left me seething.
Triple-A stations are all aiming for post-teeners. There are no more progressive stations. Listeners like me are completely disenfranchised and the industry simply doesn't care.
</rant>
Sorry... this has been pissing me off for a while, and I just had to get it out.
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
If the average user is able to send email to Aunt Ethyl with the mess-that-is-Outlook, then these same people should have no problem using, say, Kmail (KDE's included email client).
Crashnbur is hardly the dunce of a user that you describe. Just by reading his rant I can see that: he downloads, he burns CDs, and he actually cares about computing upgrades. The high-priced software he speaks of is likely development software. He should have very little difficulty trying out Linux on his desktop. I think my suggestion to him was valid.
-Justin
Can we not use UCITA to our advantage, claiming that we were nearly forced to purchase Windows under duress? I'm sure that wouldn't bode well with the DOJ. We had no choice at the time of purchase of a new system to say "I'd like that operating system you sell over there on the shelf instead, yes I'll pay for it." I'm not talking ordering out of a catalog I'm talking retail where a whole heap of computers get sold. (I build my own systems btw)
Huh? The RIAA is the paralegal arm of the recording/distribution companies. They don't give a rat's arse about artists, and most artists whore away the copyright of their tracks to their publishers. The issue is We the People vs five publishing megacorps.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This is what i've been saying all along about Napster. MP3s are great, and i have a lot of them, but they will never replace the real albums. I have 160 CDs, which means i've paid (doing a bit of averaging) about $2000 for cds... oh, did i mention, that before i began using Napster, i had about 12?
:)
Sure there are abuse cases.. anyone can abuse anything. But this doesn't mean that EVERYONE freeloads! Down with Generalizations!
To smash a single atom, all mankind was intent / Now any day the atom may return the compliment
It doesn't matter whether you burning MP3's onto a CD, or using Napster, helps or hurts the music industry, despite what Lars says. That's not the issue. The issue is: Are artists / programmers / whomever allowed to create a product, and then distribute a product as they see fit. My arguement is yes. If artists don't want their art used for something, even if it promotes their cause, they should be able to restrict it's distribution to what they want. For instance: If a painter creates a picture of a landscape or something, and sells the images as prints, for a price... can't he build some sort of license agreement, whereas if you purchase this picture, you promise not to photocopy and distribute it?
The problem is, it is very easy now to duplicate art... and all the artists are saying is, "let us control how it is used. We made it, after all" ... I hate the RIAA, too... because it's acting like some lawmaking body, and it's not. But I support people who wish to sign their art over to companies to help sell it. I support people who work hard and want a fair market, where their work won't be stolen or used without their consent. I don't think that I'm being unreasonable.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
"I am exposed to literally hundreds of different bands and scores of styles of music that I wasn't before."
Better for the industry to buy, own, and pimp a small number of BubbleGum androids. Hoes cost money you know, do you want to put all those Indi groups on YOUR payroll? You can only consolidate so much though, then your alternative bitch becomes mainstream pop, and you have to go find a new Insane Clowne Posse to sell out and make money for you.
Anyone who really prefers the self-serving whining that the doubtless noisome slashdottie wrote... well, I pity y'all, okay? Now run along and go ferment in the street like good trailer park trash.
How they can imagine that they'll ever grow up to be good coders with such sloppy habits of thought...
The article starts with a very good, yet oft-stated point about mp3s and Napster. That is, the only reason why the RIAA could possibly be upset at the habits of mp3 users is that they're obsessed with gouging us as much as possible... mp3 files don't reduce album sales, they simply help people avoid bad purchases (and sometimes help them make better ones too).
Then he rants about MS and their OS pricing policy - actually, he's not happy with ANY company that sells an OS, he feels they're all too expensive. He states that he does pay for them, but only once and with the intent of using them multiple times. This is apples to oranges when compared to the first story... the first story should have been something about wanting the right to buy a CD and make copies to keep in the car, at work, at home, backup, etc...
Then the third point has nothing to do with the other two, and philosophically disagrees with the first two: WPA has the indirect effect of removing the priviledges that he expects in the first two stories!
Perhaps the author should try posting three separate, complete, philisophically agreeing essays about each topic rather than provide us a grab bag of snippets. I would be more interested in seeing that.
Ah, if we could only moderate stories posted to the front page... there's some good stories on the main page that need some bumping up today.
your answer is... the us is nowhere near free market and getting worse because of all the new laws which regulate the economy.
I got my OS free, too. Oh... wait...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You call for the removal of government from the economic system completely. False. Deregulation has been negative in almost every case. Do you remember why government got involved in the first place? Because people were eating rat meat and doing nothing about it. Are you aware of the fact that if you buy a piece of children's sleepwear, that you have no way of knowing if it's flame retardant or not? A decade ago you knew it would be, because it's required. Today, it's not required, nor is it required that it be labeled. That's what the removal of government does.
I will agree with you that the current legal system is grossly flawed. But the answer is not to remove the law and the government. It is to alter the law (not expand, alter) to make it less biased towards the manipulator, towards the glutton, and towards the finagler.
The control-freaks know that. Witness the DMCA, the UITCA, the Napster lawsuit, the 2600 lawsuit, and so on. They know how to abuse the legal system and its holes for their own ends. Don't abandon the government. Don't pull the law out of it, because you can't. That's called anarchy, and then nobody wins.
Do your part to plug the holes in the law, and to fix the problems. If the problem is the law, you don't try and fix it through a boycott (aka "voting with your dollars"). You fix a legal problem through the legal system. That means get up off your arse, stop whining on newsboards that no one in a position of power reads, get involved in your own government, and get people elected who will work to fix the problems in the system. If you can't find one, run yourself. Government is YOU.
Yes, candidates are bought, by campaign contributions for advertising to automitons who will vote for whoever gives the best sales pitch. That is, the best marketing. Use the system right back. Ignore the marketing, get behind a candidate you support, and push. Campaign. We have a popularly elected government. If you let it create loopholes for control-freaks and conglomerates to abuse, then it is no one's fault but your own. That is what I mean by fighting back through the law. Not by removing it, but by altering it to be protective, rather than abusive.
--GrouchoMarx
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
I don't see what I do as so horribly wrong. I buy about three CDs per month, and I use about two BMG subscriptions per year, so I am legally purchasing between 30 and 50 CDs per year, which is a very significant portion of my income
:)
It's my understanding that BMG and other record clubs don't pay the artists for those albums, but chalk them up as a marketing expense. I could be wrong, but I thought I remembered reading that. Doesn't really matter how many you buy - you're still taking stuff that isn't yours. My own use of Napster has been pretty limited to searching out bootlegs and live copies of stuff that I CAN'T buy, but even then, I'm pretty hypocritical.
And applications? Some applications can be priced at up to $600 for a single CD. As if someone of college age has $600 to spend on a CD. I suggest that some of these applications drop in price -- like down to $60. There we go!
As many other people pointed out, you get college discounts. One of the guys who used to work here had a son in college - he got MS Office for something like $50. The guy here was asking why we didn't use Office. I told him what it costs for me as a small business owner to go buy it retail. He said I should just go to the university and try to buy the $50 copy.
Further to the point, however, is that just because you can't afford it doesn't mean it should be cheaper. Do you have any idea how long it might have taken to develop that $600 package? It's not priced on a whim - generally there's some research or surveying of the marketplace to see what they can charge, but there's a cost of development that has to be recouped as well.
Some applications can be priced at up to $600 for a single CD.
DON'T USE THE SOFTWARE THEN. Is there some mandate in your life that you HAVE to use that package? Will your existance end if you don't? It's probably geared toward a business. When you start working for one, if they have a need to use that package, they will provide it for you.
For goodness' sake, there's too much good FREE stuff out there already - free in the legal sense - to whine about high-priced stuff. If you want the $600 package, get a job, save your money, and buy it.
creation science book
It also seems to be a little bit conflicted. "Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to charge for multiple installs" but "Microsoft should implement restrictive technological measures to potentially allow for this" seems conflicted. I guess this guy really doesn't want the government telling him whether it's ok to use multiple copies, but he's ok if Microsoft does it the same?
And by the way, there's nothing wrong with jumping the gun expressing your concern with a new feature that a company is putting into their product. That's the best way to send them a message that they are likely to encounter customer resistance, and maybe they might want to reconsider before committing themselves-- staying silent and waiting until it's a done deal does nobody any good.
And who are you to know how much things should cost? This is, after all, a free market. If you think something is too expensive, you can go ahead and record your own music, write your own operating system, and give it away. Or find someone who did exactly that.
How did it get promoted to an article?
:)
Hugs, Cyke
Ok, after sounding like a flamebait, let me apologise and congratulate the author on this interesting comment.
Now, I justify why I consider it overrated:
It... is... too... superficial. Do not understand me wrongly. All I mean is that it is so light headed that all its points become just as simple as any average >3 comment on RIAA articles in slashdot.
Hey, Crashnbur, please reedit, make it longer, more to the point and make it a comment!
Closing Arguments
Closing argments? Where were the opening arguments? What was the question?
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
How did this make a headline story? I'm not sure that you read this before posting it Timothy, or if you did then you have just as much a distorted view as this kid.
For one, it doesn't matter how many CDs you purchase a year it doesn't justify pirating ANY amount of other music. Sure, CDs are overpriced and that's not good but you are still depriving the artist of their well deserved income. Buying 30 CDs a year doesn't mean anything to an artist whos CD you -didn't- buy.
I agree that by downloading random tracks you might come across something you like and go out and buy that CD. But realistically (across a good spectrum of Napster users) how often did this happen? I know that I usually target music that I -know- I have heard and like rather than wasting time downloading random tracks.
While the RIAA may be protecting a large income, they do also happen to stand for a lot of artists. Without the RIAA, how the hell would any amount of artists got where they are today? Music piracy would be rampant, and there would be no controlled way to licence the playing of music to the masses. All governing bodies have some amount of evil, and it's easy to overlook the good when all you care about is what they are depriving you of (free music).
What makes you think that Micorosoft should give away upgrades to their software, simply because you personally gauge the price to be too high? I know it's a fair whack, but to think that you are getting all that product (consider the developer's time that went in to making this stuff) and you just think you are welcome to free upgrades? Try that at your local car dealer...(I hate to use that analogy.. but everyone else seems to relate to it all the time...). And then, you go on to say that WPA is not a bad thing and it's Microsoft's right to include it. Two faced?
Everyone's entitled to an opinion I guess, but this is clearly just a college kid that's pissed he doesn't get enough pocket money. Hardly ground breaking news Tim.
Seriously... you like to burn CDs? Go burn yourself a GNU/Linux ISO.
-Justin
I think that the above scenarios are certainly likely to be found legal (within limits) if tried, which is why Microsoft and other software companies back UCITA. I see the license verification program that Microsoft has chosen to impliment as an attempt to technologically do what they have been unable to get lawmakers to pass-- complete enforcement of licensing practices.
I think that this is a good thing. It gives people more incentive to use open source if UCITA continues to flounder (or if passed at least except Linux from mandatory warrantee clauses). It also shows the courts that Microsoft is in the face of stiff competition only from the secondary software market (i.e. piracy) meaning that they are, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I have a whole collection of vintage punk records on vinyl. They're scratched to hell, and I'd love to have them on CD quality, except that the record companies rarely release them on CD format. And when they do, I don't feel like paying royalties a second time for records I already bought once. So I'll just download them as MP3s.
But think about the copy protection issues a little closer. If I record an original mp3, like for example, I want to sing Happy Birthday to my niece and email it to my sister so she can play it on her computer to my niece, with content protection, I'd have to buy a license from Microsoft to allow the mp3 to run on a different machine. And Paul McCartney would certainly want a royalty too, he owns the music performance rights to the Happy Birthday song!
The RIAA's accountants know that their profits have increased in the past few years. The RIAA's lawyers know that their profits have increased in the past few years. But there are people out there that are not using officially sanctioned music in officially sanctioned ways at officially sanctioned times with officially sanctioned equipment. That means there are people out there who are not under the control of the company, the mythical "consumer." This cannot be tollerated.
Microsoft has been making money hand over fist for two decades. Someone installing WinME on three of their computers when they bought one copy is not doing them any harm. If anything, it means fewer copies of Win98 in use, which means less old stuff for them to support. That's good for them. But it means that there are people out there not using the product in the officially sanctioned way on the officially sanctioned number of systems. Microsoft (and Bill Gates in particular) simply cannot deal with the concept of someone not using the product on their terms.
All of that goes back to one of the fundamental flaws in the capitalist mindset: The consumer. The mythical consumer is not a person. The mythical consumer is a machine that stands on the other side of a cash register and accepts input (products) and returns output (pictures of George Washington). They can be reduced to a mathematical equation of supply and demand. They can be manipulated by marketing. They can be made to fit into nice little cells on a spreadsheet. In short, the consumer can be controlled.
It fits nicely into the whole financial theory. Passive object Consumer (C) is convinced by active object Marketing Department (M) to purchase passive object Product (P), created by passive objects Employees (E) under the employ of the active object Owner (O). Add it all up, and you get a nice tity profit (n) for the Owner.
(C + M) + P(E) = O(n)
(A very efficent method, eh?)
There's just one problem: Not all human beings are passive objects C. Humans are not a mathematical equation. The equation works when it is not possible for a person to function otherwise. You force them into playing the role of C or E, and the equation comes out nicely. Everying is predictable, profitable, and controllable.
But as soon as something comes along that threatens the stability and controllability of that equation, panic mode sets in. The printed book would be the death of learning. TV would be the death of radio. VCRs would be the death of movies. DAT would be the death of radio. Cable would be the death of movies. E-books will be the death of learning. The Internet will be the death of civilization. And so on. A little control slips away, and the end is nigh, defend the System to the last lawyer.
No one likes uncertainty (except possibly Shrodinger), and no one likes surprises (except at birthdays). It's not your money that the RIAA or the MPAA or Microsoft want. It's your passivity. They want to know that you can be controlled, not because they want power or greed or world domination but because then you are predictable, and they can wrap their minds around something predictable. Everyone likes things to be predictable. Everyone likes knowing where their next meal is coming from.
So what do we do? Don't be a consumer. Don't be passive. Don't be swayed by marketing. Don't be a part of a machine, however well intentioned and genuinely useful it is (and it is). Most importantly: Don't take your business elsewhere. That doesn't work, it only makes your life more difficult. Saying "we'll just use open source software" doesn't do anything about the continued growth of draconian attempts at regaining control with their collateral damage. Turn and take the issue head on, at its core level: The law.
--GrouchoMarx
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?