I would say you're right about the system its self being immoral as it creates these bubbles of credit in the first place. Instead of shorter less severe bubble/collapses we have longer drawn out bubbles and subsequent collases as credit is distorted by the feds in order to create short term stability at the cost of these large bubble/collapse cycles.
you act like both have the same amount of randomness... if you make a bet at a poker table it is likely to be significantly more risky than investing in say mcdonalds. one is mostly random and the other is a company unlikely to collapse any time soon. one involves risk and concealment, the other involves risk and possible wealth creation. big difference.
often times it was closer to being fraudulent than risky... the current system allows companies to leverage far more capital than they have in assets [fractional reserve banking] that is very dependant on the stability of the money supply... consequently when there are monetary expansions followed by monetary restrictions by the federal reserve we observe a collapse of the system catalysed by panic.
nonsense. what happened was people acted in their own rational [so they thought] interest... few people want to intentionally harm themselves... the system was such that people acting to defend themselves from economic decline caused an avalanche of others doing the same. If someone believes that it is in their best interests to sell their stock it would be irrational of them to just sit there and watch their wealth erode away... but it would also mean that if they did sell their stock under incomplete information conditions the entire system becomes comparatively irrational...
if conditions exist that favor making money through "immoral behavior" then that is what will happen. people didn't magically become depraved sociopaths who inevitably caused the recession- the conditions which favored that behavior did. The models were not sophisticated enough to model human behavior rational or not under these conditions.
They should have shown the same product at the same resolution so people could objectively see the differences.
THey *should have* but they probably realized that there were few if any advantages to the new system and decided to obscure this fact. Now they've been ratted out and their blunder is on the first page of Slashdot. Oops?
screwing the customer works fien for near monopolies but not so well when you consider the fact that Ebay isn't the only game in town any more. If they screw up too much people might start using craigslist and alternatives more.
ONe of the worst things that you can do as a company is blame the user/customer... that is unless their plan is to assume that their users are idiots and therefore wouldn't go elsewhere or they haven't thought this out at all.
The only real thing the labels have are connections and the internets are destroying that advantage with every minute that passes. The irony is that the music industry is claiming rampant piracy is destroying them while at the same time justifying their existence in the name of getting the band's name out there [marketing] It seems to me that if the internet were that much less efficient at marketing a song there wouldn't be much concern about piracy.
exactly. Even if you believed they were right about losses crippling the artists, there is no way this tax can possibly compensate artists proportional to their "damages." Most of the cash probably ends up in the record labels' coffers. Even worse, by using a blanket tax like this they are effectively admitting that they prefer pre-crime over enforcing the law or at the least that they can't enforce the law at all.
music isn't necessarily born out of a desire to make $ from it but it sure helps. The problem is not the money, it is how that money is obtained. Right now the middlemen get most of their cut from a corrupt and broken system of copyright law. Artists should be able to make $ from music if they want but the current system is geared toward benefiting the big labels [unless the author lives 120+ yrs after writing the song or is a zombie]
nothing encourages people to respect copyright law like charging them regardless of any actual infringement... No different than the auto industry, failing to adapt and then when it finally bites them go looking for a way to prop up their doomed business practices.
Those who comment generally use pseudonyms, and the lawyer has asked for identifying information on about 300 of them.
how many people would have ersonal knowledge of the case? probably no where near 300 so they're implying that a smaller number of people went out of their way to voice their opinion about the guy. It seems however, that they are on a fishing expedition with suspicions but no evidence at least indicated by TFA.
how is designing software to do more things badly superior to focusing on creating software thatdoes its one and only job better? The more things software is asked to do the higher the chance that it will do at least some of those things poorly.
I am sorry but how do you "accidentally" leak a copy of the new Palm OS? Even the most basic testing of the tool before release should have caught this.
Somehow what Amazon actually did is considered being handled "poorly"?
instead of paying the proper royalties for having sold the book they decided to retroactively void a contract between Amazon and the consumer. Only now are they realizing what they have done and attempt to repair the damage the way they should have done in the first place.
Why would the solution to something that is not easily enforceable be to make it legal?
because it doesn't work? why are our police resources being used to enforce extended copyright law when it is neither enforceable nor in the public interest to do so?
With this particular issue, it simply became trivial for virtually anyone to obtain copyrighted material illegally
hence the law is unenforceable- that is to say that it can't be enforced without far more draconian measures that violate other rights.
Nobody is going to stop the advancement of the arts if it is made more difficult to share copyrighted content
all it has to do is discourage the advancement of the arts relative to an alternative solution. In that case the copyright system as it is would be unconstitutional in the US.
As someone who makes a living creating copyrighted content, I don't see why these tactics are unreasonable.
those tactics are often illegal, rights violating and unconstitutional. suing people for 10,000 x damages is a violation of the 8th amendment. various practices by the RIAA/MPAA are illegal including but not limited to violating the DMCA, abuse of the legal system, fraud and entrapment...
but if you can point me at examples of how file-sharing systems have a positive economic impact on anyone, please let me know.
live cds, distribution of software patches, advertising which ADV films uses P2P to distribute advertising clips for their anime media, distribution of creative commons licensed materials etc...
ALL CD stores but one have been driven out of business, and virtually everyone I know has stopped purchasing CD's
I'm sure that had nothing to do with single tracks being sold on Itunes, the poor state of CDs released today or the recession.
I think that the damage has already been done. Amazon handled the situation poorly and when confronted about the situation took a lot more time to attempt to remedy the problem than was necessary to degrade their image.
I just don't understand the stance that most people on this board seem to take regarding this issue. How can everyone be so supportive of what very obviously amounts to theft?
not everyone does obviously... most reasonable slashdotters advocate for reformed copyright pertly because of the unenforceable nature of longer copyright terms. many such as myself support the concept of a shorter more reasonable copyright term that does what the constitution requires: encourage the advancement of the arts.
If you do indeed use all file-sharing applications for 100% legit purposes, please educate me what you use these services for that makes them so very essential to cause these very emotional posts here.
most of the anger is directed toward the music/movie industry's response to piracy- weaken/destroy fair use, demonize all p2p [possibly restricting its use in the future out of fear] suing people as a scare tactic, excessive/un-constitutional fines, DRMed media etc...
Slashdot Mirror
I would say you're right about the system its self being immoral as it creates these bubbles of credit in the first place. Instead of shorter less severe bubble/collapses we have longer drawn out bubbles and subsequent collases as credit is distorted by the feds in order to create short term stability at the cost of these large bubble/collapse cycles.
you act like both have the same amount of randomness... if you make a bet at a poker table it is likely to be significantly more risky than investing in say mcdonalds. one is mostly random and the other is a company unlikely to collapse any time soon. one involves risk and concealment, the other involves risk and possible wealth creation. big difference.
often times it was closer to being fraudulent than risky... the current system allows companies to leverage far more capital than they have in assets [fractional reserve banking] that is very dependant on the stability of the money supply... consequently when there are monetary expansions followed by monetary restrictions by the federal reserve we observe a collapse of the system catalysed by panic.
nonsense. what happened was people acted in their own rational [so they thought] interest... few people want to intentionally harm themselves... the system was such that people acting to defend themselves from economic decline caused an avalanche of others doing the same. If someone believes that it is in their best interests to sell their stock it would be irrational of them to just sit there and watch their wealth erode away... but it would also mean that if they did sell their stock under incomplete information conditions the entire system becomes comparatively irrational...
if conditions exist that favor making money through "immoral behavior" then that is what will happen. people didn't magically become depraved sociopaths who inevitably caused the recession- the conditions which favored that behavior did. The models were not sophisticated enough to model human behavior rational or not under these conditions.
THey *should have* but they probably realized that there were few if any advantages to the new system and decided to obscure this fact. Now they've been ratted out and their blunder is on the first page of Slashdot. Oops?
screwing the customer works fien for near monopolies but not so well when you consider the fact that Ebay isn't the only game in town any more. If they screw up too much people might start using craigslist and alternatives more.
ONe of the worst things that you can do as a company is blame the user/customer... that is unless their plan is to assume that their users are idiots and therefore wouldn't go elsewhere or they haven't thought this out at all.
what is to prevent someone from searching for an exposed buoy like it is now?
because they want a bailout not compensation for actual work.
It's too bad the populace doesn't realize that it has the power to destroy all of this nonsense.
The only real thing the labels have are connections and the internets are destroying that advantage with every minute that passes. The irony is that the music industry is claiming rampant piracy is destroying them while at the same time justifying their existence in the name of getting the band's name out there [marketing] It seems to me that if the internet were that much less efficient at marketing a song there wouldn't be much concern about piracy.
It is the tragedy of the commons in action. Person A breaks a law but the fine is spread across persons ABCDEF... It's the justice system socialized.
exactly. Even if you believed they were right about losses crippling the artists, there is no way this tax can possibly compensate artists proportional to their "damages." Most of the cash probably ends up in the record labels' coffers. Even worse, by using a blanket tax like this they are effectively admitting that they prefer pre-crime over enforcing the law or at the least that they can't enforce the law at all.
music isn't necessarily born out of a desire to make $ from it but it sure helps. The problem is not the money, it is how that money is obtained. Right now the middlemen get most of their cut from a corrupt and broken system of copyright law. Artists should be able to make $ from music if they want but the current system is geared toward benefiting the big labels [unless the author lives 120+ yrs after writing the song or is a zombie]
nothing encourages people to respect copyright law like charging them regardless of any actual infringement... No different than the auto industry, failing to adapt and then when it finally bites them go looking for a way to prop up their doomed business practices.
how many people would have ersonal knowledge of the case? probably no where near 300 so they're implying that a smaller number of people went out of their way to voice their opinion about the guy. It seems however, that they are on a fishing expedition with suspicions but no evidence at least indicated by TFA.
if some people want a simple browser as bare bones as this one they can use it, if other people want more than that they can use other browsers.
how is designing software to do more things badly superior to focusing on creating software thatdoes its one and only job better? The more things software is asked to do the higher the chance that it will do at least some of those things poorly.
It sounds to me that these moderately large software projects should invest in the occasional manual check of their Final/RC builds.
I am sorry but how do you "accidentally" leak a copy of the new Palm OS? Even the most basic testing of the tool before release should have caught this.
instead of paying the proper royalties for having sold the book they decided to retroactively void a contract between Amazon and the consumer. Only now are they realizing what they have done and attempt to repair the damage the way they should have done in the first place.
because it doesn't work? why are our police resources being used to enforce extended copyright law when it is neither enforceable nor in the public interest to do so?
hence the law is unenforceable- that is to say that it can't be enforced without far more draconian measures that violate other rights.
all it has to do is discourage the advancement of the arts relative to an alternative solution. In that case the copyright system as it is would be unconstitutional in the US.
those tactics are often illegal, rights violating and unconstitutional. suing people for 10,000 x damages is a violation of the 8th amendment. various practices by the RIAA/MPAA are illegal including but not limited to violating the DMCA, abuse of the legal system, fraud and entrapment...
live cds, distribution of software patches, advertising which ADV films uses P2P to distribute advertising clips for their anime media, distribution of creative commons licensed materials etc...
I'm sure that had nothing to do with single tracks being sold on Itunes, the poor state of CDs released today or the recession.
I think that the damage has already been done. Amazon handled the situation poorly and when confronted about the situation took a lot more time to attempt to remedy the problem than was necessary to degrade their image.
not everyone does obviously... most reasonable slashdotters advocate for reformed copyright pertly because of the unenforceable nature of longer copyright terms. many such as myself support the concept of a shorter more reasonable copyright term that does what the constitution requires: encourage the advancement of the arts.
most of the anger is directed toward the music/movie industry's response to piracy- weaken/destroy fair use, demonize all p2p [possibly restricting its use in the future out of fear] suing people as a scare tactic, excessive/un-constitutional fines, DRMed media etc...