Slashdot Mirror
French President Busted For Copyright Violation
An anonymous reader writes "ZeroPaid has an interesting take on the story of Nicolas Sarkozy being accused of copyright infringement. The irony, of course, is Sarkozy's pushing of a 3-strikes law — disconnecting from the Internet those accused of file sharing — in France and across the EU. The French president had apparently offered to settle the copyright infringement accusation for one Euro, but the band rejected the offer, calling it an insult. The article notes that each year since 2006, a high-profile anti-piracy entity has been on the wrong end of a copyright infringement notice. In 2008, Sony BMG was sued for software piracy. In 2007, anti-piracy outfit BASCAP received a cease and desist order related to pirated software. And in 2006, the MPAA was accused of pirating 'This Film is Not Yet Rated'."
Do as I say.
Not as I do.
MABASPLOOM!
Maybe they don't like his agenda?
MABASPLOOM!
Maybe they don't like his agenda?
Seriously, artists are not all automatically on the side of big media. And you're right: they probably saw this as a way to make a point, that they don't like where he's trying to take copyright.
Of course, offering a single Euro as compensation was kinda ridiculous.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
is MGMT, for what it's worth. When the band decided to sue, Sarkozy's party offered a "symbolic euro" for compensation.
~~~ Paf. Le chien.
Okay, so the UMP is getting booted off the internet now, right?
Er...right?
Yes, ridiculous. Way beyond what one song would be worth.
By the time you buy a song from iTunes, do you seriously believe
the artist got anywhere near a Euro?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
It's amazing that most people simply accept that Hypocrisy is the norm. That's sad.
The copyright organizations call for "zero tolerance" and are then caught themselves.
The congressmen who rail against finding teenagers attractive are caught lusting after them.
Preachers who rail on homosexuals are caught fucking gay prostitutes.
Vigilantes who claim to catch online predators are found to be employing young teens in their exploits and having child pornography on their computers.
Educators who rail against drugs and demand for instant lockup of drug offenders... are found to be drug users themselves...
These are all real stories.
Instead of stepping back and recognizing that their viewpoints may be of questionable value and that they may have made errors in judgment... they just ignore their mistakes and continue in their hypocritical ways.
And the world is a worse place for it.
The worst thing about this is the much touted "3 strikes policy". Even if the president gets busted infringing on copyright 3 times, do you really think his internet access will be terminated?
"Oh sorry, that law wasn't intended for Important People, such as The President, who need the internet for REAL purposes."
One law for them, one law for everybody else.
Our entire civilization is being screwed up the ass SO BADLY by these people, and there's nothing we can do.
Fuck you frenchy, I hope you and your fat wife drown in a vat of wine.
This = LOL ^_______^
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
He'll just start mooching off his neighbor's wifi.
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
Cinq... quatre... trois... deux...
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Here in Chile, the president of the SCD (Society of Author Rights) was caught with pirated software, in a powerpoint lecture about... you guessed it... PIRACY! (they are triying to copy the spanish law, taxing the internet connection for the "lost of revenues")
http://www.elnortero.cl/admin/render/noticia/18164
An our congress try to pass a 3-strikes law for ISPs... with a word document created by a SCD lawyer with a pirated copy of windows ("UE, The Houze"). There are even commemorative t-shirts!
http://url.ie/10xd
http://www.elfrancotirador.cl/2009/01/15/ponte-la-camiseta-con-el-acceso-a-cultura/
There are RIAAs scammers in every country.
Not like this is the first time something like this happened. Wasn't there one story where the family of an executive officer of the RIAA was accused of this and he pushed the company to let them off with a warning?
How do you kill that which has no life?
The french president Nicolas Sarkozy is not directly sued for this copyright infringement. His own party (UMP) used the song during a meeting, and didn't reported it to the french RIAA (SACEM) for artist compensation, wich generally is pretty low.
The UMP party is sued for this, but not the french president, who was not in charge for the organization of this meeting, and has presidential immunity.
But's that's pretty funny anyway.
The song was used multiple times for his party's political campaign when the license purchased didn't allow that. From the much more informative article linked in the article, it sounds like they were permitted to use it once but then went on to use it multiple times and, additionally, put it on the internet. Then, rather than paying the difference for such use, the party offered €1. I can't imagine why the band wasn't amused...
In short, this wasn't a case of Joe User downloading a song; it was unauthorized commercial use.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
Uh, that's beside the point. The penalty being pushed is far worse than a 1 Euro compensation.
We need to enforce these laws against the children of music/movie executives and politicians and the wealthy.
Then the laws will be changed quickly.
But most of those groups think they are immune to the same treatment as the rest of humanity.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Seriously, artists are not all automatically on the side of big media.
you have no idea how right you are.
I have noticed that the 'artists' who produce schlock and hope someone will hand them a paycheck haven't even looked into copyright.
Serious artists who are making a serious effort to comment on contemporary culture are usually very much against copyright. my next show requires a camera to view the images (photographing a painting is a violation, technically).
I know a few bands who encourage people to film their shows, post them to youtube, then they make copyright claims and post ads on that video page. ( no idea how that works out).
they no longer want to be 'picked up my a major'
now, they talk about 'making it somehow without signing...by using teh internets or something...'
i have yet to find a serious artist who supports strict copyright laws. (and I know a lot of artists; being one myself, and associating mainly with other artists, and I work with musicians fairly often.)
-I only code in BASIC.-
lol. Are you trying to be funny? The agenda that the French president and the recording industry try to push hardly benefits artists. What do you think, that the RIAA is fighting tooth and nail just so your favourite electrohouse artist can get a bigger pay cheque? What Sarkozy does doesn't benefit them, and they know that. That means they're not as stupid as you rushed to claim, how shocking!
You just got troll'd!
the title says he's been "busted" the summary says he's only been "accused". do they pay you to be an editor? i certainly hope not.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
He does all of his serious crimes on secure lines.
I know Nicolas Sarkozy being an omnipresent president and all, but it's not like he personally chose the song, right? It's actually some people among his political party (the UMP) that decided to play the song in two meetings.
Otherwise, the result is the same: the political party from which Nicolas Sarkozy is has been busted for copyright infringement. It's a further proof that copyright laws are being way too tentacular. Can't they just see it?
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. --Ben Franklin
Is this what they call sarcasm?
It is a very good way to put a point across, but overdone it just makes one look like an extremely frustrated lunatic.
I'm sure there are valid points on your side of the debate, but you're preaching to a highly biased and relatively intelligent crowd. There ought to be a less self-destructive way of making your case.
Mind the frickin' laser...
May Sarkozy get the worst possible treatment allowable under law. I hope he gets all his computer (and other electronic devices) seized and thoroughly examined.
Not out of any hate of Sarkozy, or any need for vengeance for the wrongs committed by the RIAA against innocent people.
The purpose is this: I believe that those in power should be feel the impact of their decisions.
You want greater surveillance? Fine, we'll start around your house. You want to wage a war? Fine, any of your eligible children get "volunteered" for army service. You want to give the police power to search people without a warrant? Fine, you'll get searched daily both near your home and near your workplace.
Then, maybe, just maybe, people would think twice. They tend to when there's something at stake for them.
This is really an extensions of Schneier's idea about security: the one in charge will make the decision that matches their own agenda. We the people have to make it a part of the agenda of the people in power to make sure their decisions are sane. I've proposed a way.
May this makes Sarkozy's life really shitty for a while.
For most of its history, the band chose to stay away from the political realm. However, in 2004, upon learning that George W. Bush's presidential campaign was using "Times Like These" at rallies, Grohl decided to lend his public support to John Kerry's campaign. Grohl attended several Kerry rallies and occasionally performed solo acoustic sets. The entire band eventually joined Grohl for a performance in Arizona coinciding with one of the presidential debates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_Fighters#One_by_One_.282001-2004.29
Well, you got that wrong then. It were the French that introduced the concept of presumption of innocence in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and later structured the way laws are written down in the Napoleonic Code
Of course, The Enlightenment was the source for these ideals as well as the inspiration for the the US Declaration of Independence and the constitution...
This had a major influence on European law making since Napoleon occupied most of it...
relatively intelligent crowd
Is it a truth universally acknowledged that any group will always consider itself comprised of people relatively intelligent compared to some "average"?
Do any of you guys reading or posting on Slashdot ever think to yourselves that you might be, in broad intellectual terms, at or below average? Like me, you enjoy tinkering with computer hardware or software, and like me, you may have one or more good academic qualifications. Like me, you probably can quote some self-aggrandizing metric which claims to prove your intelligence. But do you actually think, in the scheme of things, that you're all that great? Do you stop and think about all the things that you cannot do, or has your skill at bullshitting your way out of your weaknesses become so honed that you even manage to fool yourself?
I judge myself as fairly stupid, and, frankly, I judge much of the output of Slashdot posters as hot air. Almost every (+5, Insightful) is a "we agree with what you said" rather than some sharp demonstration of thought. There's also the standard toadying deference to classes of people rather than ideas: whether it's someone who mentions they studied at MIT (omg MIT!!! because turning one's nose up at a well-rounded education is never likely to create an inhuman technocracy). or worked at Google (and why do you think MS is so popular on the desktop? clue: try to overcome your "abusive monopoly" whine), or.. ugh.. NewYorkCountryIPLawyerWhenHe'sNotPretendingToBe"OneOfUs".
During the dotcom boom I cofounded a pregnancy+parenting site, long since sold, and the best way to get hits was to have articles/sections about abortion and all sorts of other controversial topics. Similarly, much of Slashdot is erected as one big flamebait - the editors know that you're going to achieve nothing productive by coming here, but they're appealing to the basic human urge to show everyone else your asshole. You think your shit smells so good, doesn't it, so much more worthy of inhaling than everyone else's?
No, failure. You're going to die in 100 years like the rest of us. Think less of yourself. Hate yourself more for your failures, and show some humility. Realise that what you have to say is probably obvious or bullshit - either way, it's already been thought about by a million people before you, who didn't think themselves so important to speak it out loud. Love yourself and you will become lazy and derive a sense of entitlement based on your abilities and chance; loathe more your very existence and you will strive to be more productive and useful.
The only message worth spreading is this one.
Artists are my slaves, and they don't deserve shit for their work. As I said, FUCK artists, and FUCK their rights. I'm not doing anything wrong.
That's exactly what the RIAA says too.
http://cosmo7.com/safety/safetyriaa.jpg
It's not about fate, it's about character.
there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
Cameron? Is that you?
Cheer up, emo kid. I guarantee that you think very highly of yourself or you wouldn't have typed out that long, holier than thou, rant. You really should, as you tell others, hate yourself more, because you're a pretentious cunt and your message isn't worth the hard drive space it's saved on.
It's all about capitalism... Pirates are making available a cheaper and often superior (no drm) product. It is our duty as good capitalists to get best value for ourselves.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
You're comparing an independent group with the average dummy who signs a contract with a major label. Unlike those who sign on the dotted line, independents OWN their music. They can charge as much or as little as they like, because they haven't sold their souls to the devil.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
All people are equal, just some are more equal than others. Somehow this story reminds me of this statement again and how true it is. :-/
Now infringing on copyright in the fair use realm is one thing, infringing on copyright to gain financial or professional benefits is something I object! Trying to settle for 1 Euro is indeed rediculous! :-
Awwwww poor band, they gained nothing by having their music repeatedly exposed to millions of people... â1 was more than they deserved.
/. Where the truth
I remember seeing him come onto the stage at a Republican convention in the 1980's, to the sounds of the Monty python theme tune. I loved it!
I was waiting for the big foot to come out of the sky and squash him, but it didn't.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
Sean Hannity?!? Is that you????
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Sigh.
They were hardly protesting against having their music spread to the big masses. They obviously intented to point out that the most influential politician/pro-copyright spokesman of France is a hypocritical asshole.
It's incredible how anyone could miss the point.
Hate yourself more for your failures, and show some humility.
It doesn't work like that, at least for me. Love yourself more. There's a difference between loving oneself and trying really hard to think of oneself highly. If you love yourself you'll accept your shortcomings, and find it more easy to examine and learn from them.
I'd rather somebody say something obvious, if it were true. To a child it may be less obvious, and there have been countless times growing up where I've wondered why people didn't just point something out. And once someone knows something is obvious (because other people are constantly talking about it), then they can take it one step further and maybe reach something less obvious more quickly.
I agree with you on the moderation. I find myself using +1 Insightful for a post I believe is true, and +1 Interesting for a post I don't think is true but which raises a point. There's always some information about the moderator in a moderation, because terms such as 'insightful' and 'interesting' depend upon the opinion of the moderator.
Sarkozy compares himself to Obama a lot. It's beyond ridiculous. Especially considering the fact that he LOVED Bush, and that he is about as inspiring as him in his speeches. His vocabulary is ~1000 words at most. He's hit quickly hit 35% popularity (although he's bounced back up a bit).
Okay, before my hearing got out of control, I was a musician: here's a big secret, the model that you're defending is one wher 1% of musicians are doing 99% of the music, and 1% of that 1% is a bunch of overpaid pretty faces overlording over underpaid musicians. The recording industry as it works now is the worst enemy of the artists, so fuck you. The real income for music is, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, live performance. If the corps had their way, half the music in the world wouldn't exist today because it's derivative work (hell, italian composers ripped off heartily from each other) or because there's blatant tributes.
And this proves a major prejudice about non-Americans: Most of you immediately assume that anyone on the internet who makes an idiotic or misinformed comment is American.
The population of the United States (304 M) and anglophone Canada (25 M excl. Quebec) is more than thrice that of the UK (61 M), Ireland (4 M), Australia (21 M), and New Zealand (4 M) put together. So given a random native English speaker who uses no Indianisms, you'd be right more often than not to guess that he or she is from North America.
Besides, Slashdot is in the United States.
Love and hate are the same thing. You can't hate someone withing loving him, and you can't love someone without hating him now and then. Hate is not synonym for dislike, it's more synonym to 'care', although i agree the word is abused often, but that case you probably ment something else than hate.
A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
So if I get done for downloading music then I'll only get charged 1 euro per song too?
He has not been sued, that's what zeropaid made up - the original article says they bad has threatened to sue if they don't get their money.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
The possibility for justice to endorse lengthy remand periods was one reason why the Napoleonic Code was criticized for de facto presumption of guilt, particularly in common law countries.
It's not merely Wikipedia where this opinion is expressed. McKillop notes that
It is sometimes suggested, particularly by those from a common law system, that there is no presumption of innocence in the French criminal justice system, but rather a presumption of guilt. This is an understandable reaction by those observing French hearings, particularly in the lower courts, and if aware of the considerably higher conviction rates at hearings in France as opposed to trials in common law countries.
Was this some kind of self-deprecating meta-ironic remark, or did you really extrapolate to all Americans
Yes, he clearly extrapolated that "ALL Americans [x.]"
Not that "a depressingly large number of Americans [x.]", that couldn't be possibly what he meant.
You can't take the sky from me...
He was downloading plans for marine one, and the new U2 album.
I'm inclined to think that those who push for increased surveillance *really would not mind* if their entire lives were subject to public scrutiny. They're of the mindset that people shouldn't be able to get away with misdeeds simply by hiding behind some pesky rights...
The most likely result of subjecting politicians to this kind of treatment will be that they will subject *everyone* to the same draconian surveillance; "If I can do it, so can you..." Of course, there are people who, while doing nothing illegal, hold unpopular opinions, find themselves in ambiguous circumstances, or have "problems" the rest of society are loathe to understand. Those who shape their lives according to the model of popular conformity so as to get elected are the least able to understand the negative consequences of constant surveillance. Politicians live their entire lives under public scrutiny and constant surveillance, and as such may have a difficult time understanding the value of privacy to free societies.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
+1 Jane Austen reference! In this very literary blackhole known as slashdot.
(founded 95,000,000 yrs ago, very space opera)
The band is fully within their rights to follow this up, however a huge blow against overly restrictive copyright may have been wasted by trying to play this by the book.
Rather than complaining "Do what he says, not what he does" they could have spun it as "Do what he does, not what he says".
The French President uses a song commercially without permission or payment. Excellent, that means it's okay for everyone to do so!
The French President gets caught in copyright violation, and offers to pay 1 Euro for the song (ie, offers to pay the equivalent of purchasing the song online). Excellent, that is effectively him saying the huge damages the record industry is making up for piracy are completely unrealistic, and should be limited to the actual value of the goods you downloaded.
If the band had spun this their way, they could have put the President in a hugely uncomfortable position (which the media would have lapped up hence giving them even more exposure) and struck a hugely public blow against the RIAA/French equivalent on multiple fronts.
i have yet to find a serious artist who supports strict copyright laws.
Isn't Prince a bit of a cunt in this regard?
For the sake of capitalism, I truly hope your statement has boundaries. There is no media that can't be ripped and distributed for LESS than the folks that produce it, or ever will be
That is the quintessential form of capitalism.
If I am producing software, and 1 person buys it, copies it, then distributes it for 1/100 (arbitrary number for "best value") of the cost, what incentive do I have to continue producing software?
You don't. At least not for money. You would continue writing software for the same reasons musicians will still sing and play instruments, artists will still paint and sculpt, and authors will still write books: because you want to.
Or maybe some company hires you to work on something they need, much like medieval artists were hired by rich patrons to produce works of art for them. See: Linux
>>>Do any of you guys reading or posting on Slashdot ever think to yourselves that you might be, in broad intellectual terms, at or below average?
My IQ is 120, so yes I am 20 points above average.
I doubt very many slashdotters are at or below 100.
Most of us are above-average intelligence.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I pay 99 cents for downloading songs.
What's your problem?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
If the president does it, it's not illegal.
Yeah they should clearly settle for $100,000 a song... Just like the RIAA wants people to pay if they copyright infringe.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Do any of you guys reading or posting on Slashdot ever think to yourselves that you might be, in broad intellectual terms, at or below average? Like me, you enjoy tinkering with computer hardware or software, and like me, you may have one or more good academic qualifications. Like me, you probably can quote some self-aggrandizing metric which claims to prove your intelligence. But do you actually think, in the scheme of things, that you're all that great?
No, ofcourse not. Intelligent people know that IQ only really measures your ability to solve the kind of problems featured in IQ tests, and that intelligence in general isn't as valuable as simply hard work, nor as important for success as ruthlessness.
It does mean we're pretty smart, though. It's all some of us have, so please don't take that away from us too.
The song in question was released on Sony and Columbia. MGMT is not independent. One listen to their music should tell you that.
ResidntGeek
A few examples he's selectively remembered (Metallica, Dr. Dre, Madonna and others are either forgotten or regarded as idiots) constitute the "majority of serious artists",
What examples? Neither Dr. Dre, Madonna or any "others" were specifically mentioned in theheadlessrabitt's post. Not sure where you got that from. Matter of fact, I took his point to mean that "serious" artists are more interested in their contribution to society, than in allowing obsolescent parasites to endlessly profit from their creativity and hard work. Even if you want to put this into simple financial terms, you'll probably have better luck earning an honest living in the Internet Age if you don't sign with a major label.
This is an older article, but Janis Ian certainly qualifies as a longtime industry insider, and she really takes the content cartel to task.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Your use of North America in response to "Americans" and your grouping of Canadians in with that seems to be implying that Canadians are Americans. Does this mean Mexicans are also Americans? If so, does this mean Canadians and Mexicans can now vote in US federal elections?
Your use of North America in response to "Americans" and your grouping of Canadians in with that seems to be implying that Canadians are Americans.
That doesn't change my point, which is that a supermajority of native English speakers in industrialized countries live in the United States. Even if I put anglophone Canada on the other side of the scale, the United States still has well over twice the combined population of anglophone Canada + UK + Ireland + Australia + NZ.
And a two sentence post is enough to prove that someone is a native English speaker? :)
May we live long and die out
It's the only place on the net where we can have a story about an indie band getting bent over a barrel by governments, and have the posts somehow morph into "God exists"... "No silly!" and no-one blinks an eye about it.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Well. They all live in America. The fact that the USA took that term, and -- expecting that they are the only ones on the continent -- made it their own, does not change that.
Oh well... Wee all live an Americaaa... Americaaa, Americaaa... :P
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
That's probably the most obvious "self-aggrandizing metric which claims to prove your intelligence" that the OP was talking about.
An IQ test is as much a broad measure of intelligence as performance in the 100 metres is of life expectancy.
(Hell, it's even nonsensical to talk about "above average IQ", since there's an inherent self-selection bias in testing. It is absurd to assume that humans are all sufficiently homogeneous that we'll all (i) be equally likely to accept a test; (ii) be equally likely to want to complete the test to the best of our ability. For example, I willingly underperform on the whole range of "intelligence" and "aptitude" tests because I find them to have no purpose: it is thus moral to make their application more difficult. I similarly tackle "personality" tests by imagining a vaguely coherent fictional character and answering as he or she might. But on subject-specific tests I have always tried my utmost to succeed. A naive interpretation would identify me as a first class mathematician with psychopathic tendencies and the wit of a labrador ;-).)
I've been writing about this lately at my blog about this. Why would a president be able to pay for his commercial deeds with 1 euro symbolic, while the others get outragious fines?
How could one who creates the rules, break them so open and public, without the majority fighting back. How could you ever believe in one who breaks his own rules, pissing on the artists in symbolism?
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Someone with the qualities you're stabbing at -- a man who thinks himself intelligent when in reality he is not -- would read what you've said and immediately brush it aside as bullshit. A more intelligent man would (perhaps only briefly) look into themselves, searching for the answer... something solid to anchor to.
My anchor is the way in which I percieve the world: with reason and logic. Essentially, the scientific method.. or a watered down, fit-for-every-day-use version of it. What separates me and my belief of superior intelligence, from the belief of superior intelligence of an astrologist, is not my accumulated knowledge or degrees. It's my method of scrutinising every "fact" or idea that is levelled my way in such a way as to conclusively or near-certainly know that what I hold to be true stands up to observable evidence, logic, and reason... and the logic and reason of like-minded peers.
In short: if you're trying to equate the more rigorously intellectual hobbies such as "tinkering with computers", or "good academic qualifications", with relative intelligence thenn I dare say that you're a bit off the mark yourself.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
Every moral statement is a coloured assertion of one's own opinion.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
Whatever.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Come on. You can afford more. Just print more euro and pay them with those.
New Economic Perspectives
This is a good post. The GP won the internet.
"There is nothing nice about Steve Jobs and nothing evil about Bill Gates." - Chuck Peddle
thank you.
for every Metallica that you hear on the radio, there are 100 other bands out there who are just as good that you have never heard of, and they are the majority of artists that I am talking about.
they don't make millions sucking the corporate tit, they do what they do, (often at a great financial expense) for the love of creating and performing and expressing themselves. to these artists, local recognition and applause at the end of the night are a concern, not busting fans for making unauthorized recordings.
-I only code in BASIC.-
Sometimes this is how public policy changes.
mod -1 obvious
That is the quintessential form of capitalism.
Lowest cost no matter what means you got no problems buying stolen goods or if it was assembled by child slave workers with no health, saftey or environment standards for that matter. Yes, obviously that's different than copyright infrinment since the owner no longer has it but by your definition I don't see why anyone should give a fuck.
You don't. At least not for money. You would continue writing software for the same reasons musicians will still sing and play instruments, artists will still paint and sculpt, and authors will still write books:
What you're asking for would be less than capitalism, hell it's be less than Soviet plan economy. It'd be the scraps left over from what people bother to do when they got time off, snd only from the people in it for the love of it, many people involved in the technical sides of someone else's creative work definately aren't. Do you honestly understand how huge the "mass market" is? Basicly, anything where you make something, offer it to the general public for some price and whoever pays gets a copy so that you recoup the costs of designing and implementing it and maybe something to pay the bills. Even the "niche" markets function this way, the only customers you'd have left would be the really custom "no pay, no product" solutions.
It's funny, with the Internet there's all this talk about a small world and how you can reach the whole world with your products and whatnot. Yet the usual solution that gets played around for musicians if copyrights disappear is "do live shows". That's about as anti-internet, anti-globalization local pub solution as possible. Copyright is the only real practical means of getting some money from me on the other side of the globe. "Here's some free music, come to my concert if you like it" is just never, ever going to happen because there just aren't enough fans in one place to justify the costs. Well that and ads but if you consider that with no copyright there's also nothing to stop anyone from ripping out the ads so it doesn't work any better either.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It'd be the scraps left over from what people bother to do when they got time off, snd only from the people in it for the love of it, many people involved in the technical sides of someone else's creative work definately aren't.
Yes. Your point?
That does not mean there is no work for programmers, what it means is that the days of doing one piece of programming and sit down for 100 years waiting for the royalties are over.
There are plenty of jobs for programmers doing customized work for clients, work that most likely will never be published. There is your incentive to keep programming: find where the real money is instead of keep looking for it by means of wishful thinking.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Most of those damn singers / musicians / sound / video etc are richer than a good bunch of us here
False. A huge, incredibly vast majority of all musicians hardly make any money at all from their hobby. Due to the copyright monopoly laws and clustering effects, a tiny fraction will be able to rise to the top, become a "star" so to speak. This is exactly what the record companies want, because they only have to bother with a handful of people, it makes it easier with marketing and chart placements etc etc.
Hopefully the "pirate movement" will eventually equalize this a bit, making the big stars bleed a bit, and moving the money from the top to some of the others. When the record companies no longer can easily dictate what artists will get radiotime and shelf space, but the music is mostly spread and marketed through word-of-mouth and P2P sites, there's a lot more room for small and medium artists.
c++;
Indeed.
Jonathan Coulton (a god in my little world) makes his living touring, selling merch and selling CDs/downloads for what amounts to be tips. At his shows, someone from the fan club will pass out beanie babies with safety pins, audience members pin a bill or two to the beanie. At some orchestrated point in the show, everyone throws the beanies at him. It's funny, and it's a tip jar. All of his material is free to download (under CC license), but you can buy the CDs as well. He'll never be rich, but he's making about as much as i am at my IT gig... i bet he enjoys his job more than i do.
They're also defending a model that gives very little to many artists. If you're on the up and coming side of things you could be in the red after a tour. It's also a system that benefits stock holders and executives more than the artists.
- It it can be digitized, the supply is virtually infinite.
- There is a finite demand for any product, esp. something with subjective appeal such as art
- A finite demand divided by an infinite supply gives us a value as close to zero as makes no odds
Sell me something i can't download:
- A concert ticket (ideally at a small venue)
- A handshake and autograph after the show
- A limited edition CD/DVD
- A t-shirt so i can advertise you and express my fandom
- Include a raffle ticket with each CD (single or album), then have a drawing for prizes like backstage passes and other silly stuff)
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
No. For example, groups of athletes almost certainly consider themselves faster or stronger than average, but they're unlikely to define their group in terms of intelligence.
Occasionally. Then I look around at a lot of those other people out there, and I reject the hypothesis.
Well, you have a problem there. If you're not stupid, you refute your own hypothesis. If you are stupid, your judgement of others is likely faulty.
Well, maybe you are fairly stupid. Either that or you're trying to play the rest of us for suckers. The self-loathing and productive person is useful to someone, but he derives no gain from his productivity.
You can't hate someone withing loving him, and you can't love someone without hating him now and then.
So all those people who hate W and orgasmed when he left office really love him? That's just wrong.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
You're confusing 'is' with 'ought'. Just because the nearly universal practice of pirating can be explained by capitalist theory, it doesn't make it morally right.
This is similar to how the supporters of social darwinism misunderstood the lesson of natural selection. Just because nature chooses the fittest, it doesn't mean we 'ought' to do the same.
There are other ways of making money out of art and software. Moving from a good to a service is probably the best choice.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
And somehow the practice of large businesses using extremely cheap labour, gouging their customers, imposing onerous restrictions (drm) on paying customers is morally right?
Greedy capitalists will do anything they can, wether moral or not, if it will increase profits.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Neeeeeeeoo, not quite, but points for trying! :) That link should cover all the above labelled points (and knowledge is always nice, too).
Anyhow, the gist of my perception is (worded differently) that what I percieve, I must then back up, either weakly or strongly, depending on the subject matter. For an example:
- Somebody comes up and tells me that astrology is true and correct and good science. Essentially, the way that the planets align etc can be "read" to determine my personal future (and the personal future of anybody).
- I mull it over and eventually consider that, underneath the quackery surface, there are several focus points. There are well more than 12 types of people in the world... where are all the other personal futures? Why do these readings always come across as cold reading? Why do all twelve readings match my life/week simultaneously? What is the underlying reasoning behind the alignment of celestial bodies, with the impending fate of ourselves? If the future is determinable, implying that it is set in stone, then why are we reading it in the hopes of changing something that is static? If it isn't static, then wouldn't the very act of knowing the future distort it into something different by our newly enlightened actions (or inactions)?
- The astrologist (or believer) can then be confronted with the above. They're all pretty strong points, but they're all pretty obvious, too -- if this science is worth a damn then they've probably got the answers to them all, or at the very least detailed hypothesis on how it all functions. As it is, I've performed this step, and the answer is unwaveringly a variation of finger wiggling and a mystical "ooooOOOOOoooooo!" noise. For me, this is enough to throw astrology out of the window -- nothing supports it. It's akin to the tooth fairy, or god, or mayan prophecy -- fiction that some people take a little too seriously and back it up with fallicious logic and nothing else. This wouldn't satisfy rigorous science but it's a satisfying conclusion for me, personally. I'm not a journal. Hence watered down scientific method.
I guess that's what it comes down to -- applying "proper" logic and reasoning, evidence gathering, as opposed to logical fallacies and testimonial/intuitional/anecdotal "evidence". You are justified to take a look at these two concepts and dismiss them as no different to other concepts -- that's generally what one comes to learn as they grow, that everyone has "their own way" of thinking and doing things, and they all think they're right. The awesome thing that distinguishes "my way" from the rest?
There's no holes in it. The more intelligent you get, the more knowledge you acquire, the more it makes sense and the stronger it becomes. Try applying that qualifier to anything else (which does the opposite) and you'll see why the last few hundred years have been very special for our species.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
I guess another way of percieving it would be to expand on that last paragraph -- to test its bulletproofness. It's quite easy to do. Just go up to someone with an opposing view point and apply yourself. For example, I can (and do) take on anyone who adopts a more supernatural stance towards existence. Astrology (as exampled above), god(s), spirits, you name it. Not only have my arguments not even been dented in these debates, they haven't even gotten close to it.
Taking evolution vs. creationism as an example, where my opponent brings up a challenge against evolution, I have the answer, no matter what it is. That's because evolution is solid science (at the moment, it's a more solid science than the theory of gravity) and what hole is a creationist going to find in it that thousands of fulltime scientists can't? In the meantime, my assertions inevitably cause them to fall back on fallicious logic ("god wrote the book so it's right" -> "the book is right so god is real" / "god works in mysterious ways" translated "I don't know or care to know").
It's practically bullet proof and you're using the fruits of it to communicate with a chap in New Zealand.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
Orrin Hatch, the "pirates should have their computers destroyed" Senator, had pirated software on his website in 2003.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
If you belive that then you must also conclude you are ~13% dumber than GWB.
What most people don't seem to get (yes, even the intelligent) is that intelligence and common sense are two completely different, and completely unrelated things.
GWB may have had a 130 or whatever IQ, so academically, he's pretty damn smart. Common-sense wise, though, he's dumb as a bag of rocks.
I know somebody who always did poorly on any kind of intelligence test, but they have more common sense than just about anybody else I know.
Now, if you've got a 120+ IQ, and you've got a head full of common sense? Well, then you're truly brilliant, in both the book learning academic sort of way, and life experience way. Then you're going places.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Perhaps you could rephrase your argument then? All I've read thus far has been a misunderstanding of science.
Are you after philosophy? Because I can't help you here. As far as I'm concerned, until something passes into the realm of the testable, it's baseless speculation. That isn't to say that it is impossible for some things to be tested. Given enough time (a LOT of time), science should eventually give us all the answers... and cease to be science. But that's just speculation. Even though that's the pattern of science so far... it serves its own ends in terms of discovering that deemed undiscoverable... it doesn't count as evidence that all is undiscoverable -- that's a logical fallacy (all X i've seen is Y thefore all X is Y).
Are you trying to argue against the senses? Well, go nuts man. If you're right then there's no reason to argue against them -- we'll never know the truth -- and we'll just have to make do with the illusion. If you're wrong then for all intents and purposes, nothing has changed. In either case we're treading the same path.
Are you arguing against the scientific method? You say it's not applicable to everything -- do you have any examples?
Sorry, it's just kind of hard to read what you're after.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!