and there's always xna to get some really nice instant gratification (huge libraries, huge support network)... and an introduction into the games development process if a broader perspective is needed, using the creators club...
the copyright owners are trying to support a failing system. the laws and rights that applied years ago aren't relevant any more but they're still stupidly being enforced.
i think the world needs to view the internet as a separate country from the rest of the world. there has to be a set of regulations governing the use of the internet. for that to happen, a group has to be set up to agree what is universally and globally seen as criminal behaviour and then apply it to the internet. it can't be "this country allows this, so as long as the person was in this country, its okay", because that country's resources are accessible from everywhere in the physical world. i believe there's such thing as freedom of speech, and everyone should have a say, but there's just some things that the world would be better without.
its merely a thought exercise, but where better to air a thought than/.
the way i see it is that there's two types of artist. those that produce works for money, and those that don't and get money anyway. the former tend to be the one's doin' the sue-in'. that doesn't mean to say that they don't produce good works of art, it's more the situation "you WILL pay to enjoy my art" as opposed to "if you like it, pay me to produce more". it just doesn't feel right somehow
i think any system perpetuated by personal gain is flawed full stop. everybody wants more. even if they've got everything they ever wanted, they still want more. artists want more money. record labels want more control over the work their artists create. governments want more control over their people and will influence the record labels at their highest level in order to direct culture in the directions it desires. the people want more freedom. ultimately all concerned parties want more of lots of different things. money, influence, freedom, material goods.
what people are not willing to do any more is take responsibility. nobody wants to deal with themselves any more. if they run out of money, they blame the recession, when actually they've just spent more money than they have in reserve. nobody wants to save up for anything, they pay more over a longer period of time and get a credit card, just for the shear convenience. they then lose their job, and they've got no means to pay off the debt they owe the bank... money which the bank created out of nothing to begin with, but thats another rant... nobody wants to change to renewable energies, because that involves initiative, and initiative involves hassle, hassle which people aren't willing to take responsibility for.
the artists want to make money from the album they've made, but instead of giving it to their friends and distributing it themselves (taking all of the money make for themselves), they shift all of that business to the record label they sign a contract with to give them a large percentage of the total takings (less money, quicker process). the record label want to control who hears their new product but dont like the idea of making consumers sign a contract to give them the license to use the product (better process, more expenditure, more internal paperwork), so they say to governments that they can outline what sort of product fits with what they want people listening to (less hassle, more guarantee of consumer uptake, more money). the governments then want people to accept the direction they want things to go in but they dont want to tell people they've got a direction at all (nanny state, less freedom), so they just dont tell the people.
whats interesting to note, is that at the head of all the parties involved is a single person. banks, governments, bands, record labels. this leaves a high level of influence in the hands of a few people, which, history has shown us, is a baaaaaad idea... taking us back to the first point... personal gain... i think something's very wrong, but nobody wants to take responsibility for things they can do to change...
there are several things wrong with the whole system (in terms of music)...
- the fact that you're paying for a license to listen to the music, not the music itself is a bit of a fiddle. (correct me if i'm wrong). if i pay for music, i want to be able to do with that particular music, what i wish. if i want to play it from the rooftops for all to hear, i should be able to.
- the fact that, out of the money you pay for music, only a small percentage of that money actually goes to the artists. the rest goes to the record labels, and covers the costs of advertising, paying the production team and fueling corporate profits. the band make most of their money from live concerts, which, in my eyes, far exceeds the experience of listening to an album on my headphones. in accordance with this level of experience, live concerts cost a substantial amount more than a cd, but i really dont care. if i managed to get all my albums free of charge, i'd be able to pick the best ones to go and see live, and have more money with which to fund such a venture.
- the fact that, when a law suit is filed for copyright infringement, the amount demanded is so far in excess of the amount of music that has actually been downloaded. this can only lead me to think that its the record labels suing fans, not the bands, and that the record labels are looking to recoup their losses to copyright infringement on the few scapegoats hap-hazardly chosen from the masses. if it was a case of "okay, you've been caught, hand over the money"... "okay, here you go"... *hands over money for the 3 cd's he downloaded for a friend*... then i would be quite willing to co-operate. but that'd be honest, and more expensive, quite un-corporate. instead they sue for hundreds of thousands of *currency* to make up as much money as they can manage.
i suppose all the above is indicative of a flawed system. as a band, the last thing you want to be doing is hassling your fanbase for money that you're not getting anyway... i just question the higher level affiliations between the record companys, production companys, parent conglomorates and the policing services. i'd imagine the governments of the world are quite sympathetic to the industry that makes an extremely substantial amount of money, and has the ultmate influence on popular culture in society. you have large record companys paying for "britney spears 2.0" to keep us away from thinking about the real issues... like in the USA, and their laws about income tax, or lack of them... or in england, and their complete lack of understanding of how money is created (nobody knows the answer to a simple question - "where does money come from?").
i've probably missed stuff, but jus add to it when you feel free.:-)
i currently work as a technician in a secondary school with 1800 students and maintain over 500 machines. the computers in school are a privilage for the students. they are there for school work, for ICT lessons and for the student registering system. they are there for access to the internet in a legal manner, via filtering . we have a service where the students can log into a virtual learning from home and access resources such as powerpoint presentations, word documents and PDFs. we have a security strategy and policies in place to enforce the strategy.
it is the stance of the school that if a student is attempting to highlight flaws in the schools security system, they'll probably find them. the excuse "i was searching for flaws" is the typical response of someone who's been caught, or someone who's being a smart-arse, both of which are not favourable positions to be in when attempting to scrape an education. that student shouldn't be attempting to "break in" but should be doing their work. they are given a username and a password to get into the network on any machine in the school. they don't need to force entry.
it is possible to gain access to any computer via a linux boot CD because of the way we ghost all the machines in the school. we use an acronis CD to boot from and load a ghost image from a server containing JUST ghosts (aptly named Casper;-)). it is the most efficient way to re-install all 50 machines in a computer suite on a regular basis. this is a security flaw, i agree, but the functionality it provides serverely outweighs the defecits of vulnerability.
in conclusion, any student trying to gain entry to the network in an unauthorised manner, no matter what the intent of that student, is still unauthorised and therefore illegal and subject to reprimand. the machines aren't there for students to hack, they're there for them to be able to complete their coursework. nuff said
good points are that if the co-operation meant better compatability, (if i made a site in go-live then it would definately work in firefox, or firefox could be made to adapt to go-live standard content) then i'd be happy!
bad news could be that firefox becomes closed source, and this could be a precursor to a buy-out. first, adobe are tempting the execs, getting friendly, and showing them what substantial funding culminates to... then deciding that, somehow, a coroporate merging would be a good idea...
why does the guy bother? he's got a maths degree, and works at harvard. why the hell does he care if some journalist spreads proverbial shite about his theory. presumably the theory has gone through the channels to become legitimate and several other mathmaticians have also proofed the piece. he's obvously bored, or its a bit of a stunt to get people to read the theory, and the journalist is basically fanning the flames.
dont like jounralists. agreed, speading the proverbial does rake in the money, but i have to wonder at how much consideration there is for others...
if the guy's theory is flawed, then surely it be best that someone does flag discrepencies in it...
people in modern times are so sheltered that they cant stand anything but normality. they are just looking for someone to blame for having the urge to go and stab someone.
the sad thing is, that some people get so wrapped up in the game that they cant seperate themselves from it. there was one guy in the local news who was playing a game while looking after his baby daughter. he ended up getting so annoyed with his daughter for disrupting his gaming that he put a pillow over her head and killed her. i understand that i may well be speaking to the wrong people about the lengths some go to have an uninterrupted gaming session, but i'd have thought a daughter came first!
on the other hand, gaming violence possibly de-sensetises people to the fact that "eurgh, thats someones arm", but its a moderation thing. if they weren't exposed to it at all, they wouldn't understand that its happening.
i think there's too much legislation and policy proventing something like zune being a success. iether the law has to be changed, or these kind of features are going to have to be relegated to products that aren't designed specifically as music players.
iether you end up sending too many items in a day for the record companies to sleep at night, or the item becomes completely limited and doesn't live up to the hype or expectations of its users. bit of a crap compromise.
i suppose the consolation is that microsoft have ploughed that much money into the product and will inevitably have a 10-15 year business plan almost ensuring that the zune name, or whatever microsoft wishes to call it, will be a relative success.... and i have just ordered an 80gb iPod... just to make my stance clear!
Slashdot Mirror
and there's always xna to get some really nice instant gratification (huge libraries, huge support network)... and an introduction into the games development process if a broader perspective is needed, using the creators club...
the copyright owners are trying to support a failing system. the laws and rights that applied years ago aren't relevant any more but they're still stupidly being enforced.
/.
i think the world needs to view the internet as a separate country from the rest of the world. there has to be a set of regulations governing the use of the internet. for that to happen, a group has to be set up to agree what is universally and globally seen as criminal behaviour and then apply it to the internet. it can't be "this country allows this, so as long as the person was in this country, its okay", because that country's resources are accessible from everywhere in the physical world. i believe there's such thing as freedom of speech, and everyone should have a say, but there's just some things that the world would be better without.
its merely a thought exercise, but where better to air a thought than
the way i see it is that there's two types of artist. those that produce works for money, and those that don't and get money anyway. the former tend to be the one's doin' the sue-in'. that doesn't mean to say that they don't produce good works of art, it's more the situation "you WILL pay to enjoy my art" as opposed to "if you like it, pay me to produce more". it just doesn't feel right somehow
i think any system perpetuated by personal gain is flawed full stop. everybody wants more. even if they've got everything they ever wanted, they still want more. artists want more money. record labels want more control over the work their artists create. governments want more control over their people and will influence the record labels at their highest level in order to direct culture in the directions it desires. the people want more freedom. ultimately all concerned parties want more of lots of different things. money, influence, freedom, material goods.
what people are not willing to do any more is take responsibility. nobody wants to deal with themselves any more. if they run out of money, they blame the recession, when actually they've just spent more money than they have in reserve. nobody wants to save up for anything, they pay more over a longer period of time and get a credit card, just for the shear convenience. they then lose their job, and they've got no means to pay off the debt they owe the bank... money which the bank created out of nothing to begin with, but thats another rant... nobody wants to change to renewable energies, because that involves initiative, and initiative involves hassle, hassle which people aren't willing to take responsibility for.
the artists want to make money from the album they've made, but instead of giving it to their friends and distributing it themselves (taking all of the money make for themselves), they shift all of that business to the record label they sign a contract with to give them a large percentage of the total takings (less money, quicker process). the record label want to control who hears their new product but dont like the idea of making consumers sign a contract to give them the license to use the product (better process, more expenditure, more internal paperwork), so they say to governments that they can outline what sort of product fits with what they want people listening to (less hassle, more guarantee of consumer uptake, more money). the governments then want people to accept the direction they want things to go in but they dont want to tell people they've got a direction at all (nanny state, less freedom), so they just dont tell the people.
whats interesting to note, is that at the head of all the parties involved is a single person. banks, governments, bands, record labels. this leaves a high level of influence in the hands of a few people, which, history has shown us, is a baaaaaad idea... taking us back to the first point... personal gain... i think something's very wrong, but nobody wants to take responsibility for things they can do to change...
there are several things wrong with the whole system (in terms of music)...
:-)
- the fact that you're paying for a license to listen to the music, not the music itself is a bit of a fiddle. (correct me if i'm wrong). if i pay for music, i want to be able to do with that particular music, what i wish. if i want to play it from the rooftops for all to hear, i should be able to.
- the fact that, out of the money you pay for music, only a small percentage of that money actually goes to the artists. the rest goes to the record labels, and covers the costs of advertising, paying the production team and fueling corporate profits. the band make most of their money from live concerts, which, in my eyes, far exceeds the experience of listening to an album on my headphones. in accordance with this level of experience, live concerts cost a substantial amount more than a cd, but i really dont care. if i managed to get all my albums free of charge, i'd be able to pick the best ones to go and see live, and have more money with which to fund such a venture.
- the fact that, when a law suit is filed for copyright infringement, the amount demanded is so far in excess of the amount of music that has actually been downloaded. this can only lead me to think that its the record labels suing fans, not the bands, and that the record labels are looking to recoup their losses to copyright infringement on the few scapegoats hap-hazardly chosen from the masses. if it was a case of "okay, you've been caught, hand over the money"... "okay, here you go"... *hands over money for the 3 cd's he downloaded for a friend*... then i would be quite willing to co-operate. but that'd be honest, and more expensive, quite un-corporate. instead they sue for hundreds of thousands of *currency* to make up as much money as they can manage.
i suppose all the above is indicative of a flawed system. as a band, the last thing you want to be doing is hassling your fanbase for money that you're not getting anyway... i just question the higher level affiliations between the record companys, production companys, parent conglomorates and the policing services. i'd imagine the governments of the world are quite sympathetic to the industry that makes an extremely substantial amount of money, and has the ultmate influence on popular culture in society. you have large record companys paying for "britney spears 2.0" to keep us away from thinking about the real issues... like in the USA, and their laws about income tax, or lack of them... or in england, and their complete lack of understanding of how money is created (nobody knows the answer to a simple question - "where does money come from?").
i've probably missed stuff, but jus add to it when you feel free.
erm... has anyone seen 28 days later?
i currently work as a technician in a secondary school with 1800 students and maintain over 500 machines. the computers in school are a privilage for the students. they are there for school work, for ICT lessons and for the student registering system. they are there for access to the internet in a legal manner, via filtering . we have a service where the students can log into a virtual learning from home and access resources such as powerpoint presentations, word documents and PDFs. we have a security strategy and policies in place to enforce the strategy.
;-)). it is the most efficient way to re-install all 50 machines in a computer suite on a regular basis. this is a security flaw, i agree, but the functionality it provides serverely outweighs the defecits of vulnerability.
it is the stance of the school that if a student is attempting to highlight flaws in the schools security system, they'll probably find them. the excuse "i was searching for flaws" is the typical response of someone who's been caught, or someone who's being a smart-arse, both of which are not favourable positions to be in when attempting to scrape an education. that student shouldn't be attempting to "break in" but should be doing their work. they are given a username and a password to get into the network on any machine in the school. they don't need to force entry.
it is possible to gain access to any computer via a linux boot CD because of the way we ghost all the machines in the school. we use an acronis CD to boot from and load a ghost image from a server containing JUST ghosts (aptly named Casper
in conclusion, any student trying to gain entry to the network in an unauthorised manner, no matter what the intent of that student, is still unauthorised and therefore illegal and subject to reprimand. the machines aren't there for students to hack, they're there for them to be able to complete their coursework. nuff said
just thought i'd state the obvious...
good points are that if the co-operation meant better compatability, (if i made a site in go-live then it would definately work in firefox, or firefox could be made to adapt to go-live standard content) then i'd be happy!
bad news could be that firefox becomes closed source, and this could be a precursor to a buy-out. first, adobe are tempting the execs, getting friendly, and showing them what substantial funding culminates to... then deciding that, somehow, a coroporate merging would be a good idea...
just a thought...
why does the guy bother? he's got a maths degree, and works at harvard. why the hell does he care if some journalist spreads proverbial shite about his theory. presumably the theory has gone through the channels to become legitimate and several other mathmaticians have also proofed the piece. he's obvously bored, or its a bit of a stunt to get people to read the theory, and the journalist is basically fanning the flames.
dont like jounralists. agreed, speading the proverbial does rake in the money, but i have to wonder at how much consideration there is for others...
if the guy's theory is flawed, then surely it be best that someone does flag discrepencies in it...
people in modern times are so sheltered that they cant stand anything but normality. they are just looking for someone to blame for having the urge to go and stab someone.
the sad thing is, that some people get so wrapped up in the game that they cant seperate themselves from it. there was one guy in the local news who was playing a game while looking after his baby daughter. he ended up getting so annoyed with his daughter for disrupting his gaming that he put a pillow over her head and killed her. i understand that i may well be speaking to the wrong people about the lengths some go to have an uninterrupted gaming session, but i'd have thought a daughter came first!
on the other hand, gaming violence possibly de-sensetises people to the fact that "eurgh, thats someones arm", but its a moderation thing. if they weren't exposed to it at all, they wouldn't understand that its happening.
i think there's too much legislation and policy proventing something like zune being a success. iether the law has to be changed, or these kind of features are going to have to be relegated to products that aren't designed specifically as music players. iether you end up sending too many items in a day for the record companies to sleep at night, or the item becomes completely limited and doesn't live up to the hype or expectations of its users. bit of a crap compromise. i suppose the consolation is that microsoft have ploughed that much money into the product and will inevitably have a 10-15 year business plan almost ensuring that the zune name, or whatever microsoft wishes to call it, will be a relative success. ... and i have just ordered an 80gb iPod... just to make my stance clear!