I agree; they ought to follow the same rules as everyone else. Or switch to Linux, as the other post said.
Now, tell that to the shareholders of all the companies enjoying the fruits of all that cheap labor, all those folks who want profit at all costs.
You can't have your capitalist cake and eat it too. If you make the people you're exploiting "play by the rules," you're going to have to accept some lower profits, and I don't see a lot of companies doing that.
I'm not saying "yay pirates;" I'm just pointing out that things are never as black and white as the GP claimed.
Okay, but let's say every company in China that uses a computer to run its business suddenly had to purchase a full-price retail version of Windows for every computer they have. (I'm quite sure that most of them aren't running "legit" copies.)
Now, to come up with $150-300 per computer, they either raise their prices, or pay their workers less, or go out of business. This ends, or at least slows, the flow of cheap goods that has made our economy go over the past quarter-century or so. So in this case, purely hypothetical but likely pretty close to the truth, piracy of Microsoft's software actually helps the economy immensely. Right and wrong are never that simple.
And I'll even beat the "stealing" dead horse again and say that if someone figured out a way to duplicate my car (which is what we're talking about; no one "loses" their copy of Windows because someone pirates a disc), I'd be more than happy to let them, as long as they changed the license plate number so I could tell which one was mine.
They're seriously thick-headed enough to go after Creative Suite?
They get points for sheer balls, but trying to get Adobe users to even consider anything besides their beloved Illustrator or Photoshop is like talking to a particularly condescending brick wall. Take it from a Corel Draw user.
You're missing my point so entirely that I don't think I can effectively explain myself to you, but I'm going to try.
I'm not talking about appealing to the reason of the people who spew forth such hateful nonsense. But by censoring them, you're putting their bullshit outside the realm of criticism by other people. You ban a book, and it immediately gets read, especially by the young, who are now exposed to an idea that they know is considered rebellious, with no guidance whatsoever. They're going to think it's "cool," and all of a sudden the crazies have won another generation. If the book wasn't banned, they could be exposed to those ideas in a way that explains just how crazy and dangerous they are.
I'm not "shouting back a tidal wave." I'm saying, let's not build the next set of houses so close to the damn beach. I don't have the answer to the current crop of violent nutjobs out there, and neither do you. But we can sure as hell try to prevent making more of them.
I disagree 100%. The way to counter insanity is to refute it, not ban it. Banning it only promotes it. Dangerous ideas need to have the harsh light of reason shone on them to explain why they're so dangerous. Censorship is what really fans the flames of these ideas. No subject should be taboo, especially the dangerous ones.
You're drifting dangerously close to all that "The Secret" woo-woo. Or are you a believer, trying to slip it in under the radar? Either way, I call bullshit before you even start.
Another great reference, if you're interested, is $30 Film School by Michael Dean. I bought it a couple years ago when I was going to make a short film (I still am; it's just on the back-burner right now).
This is the best way I can think of to stick it to the MPAA, though: Go make your OWN movie! You won't make any money, but DIY stuff always makes you feel good.
This is going to change car ads as we know them....
Young hipster: Hello, I'm a Scion XB.
Middle-age guy in a suit: And I'm a Ford Expedition.
YH: We both have four doors.
MAH: Four wheels.
YH: And an engine.
MAH: But that's where the similarities end. You see, I have room for seven.
YH: So? I have room for five.
MAH: And I can tow 6000 pounds.
YH: And yet, we both spend most of our time in traffic, with just one person inside. What's your MPG again?
MAH:...Like, twelve... Hey, what's that backing-up-and-turning maneuver you're doing?
YH: It's called parallel parking.
MAH:...Wish I could do that...
Gravity is a theory. Are you saying physicists discussing rocks falling to the floor should avoid mentioning it?
Yes. Gravity is the tool of Satan, trying to pull everything down closer to Hell. You need to pray until you learn to fly, to avoid the Devil pulling you earthward.
She IS a scientist. I'm a scientist. If you know how science works, and you test hypotheses to eliminate the ones that don't work, you're a scientist. Track down a short in an electrical system, and you've just conducted a scientific inquiry. Now you're a scientist too.
The title "scientist" carries with it no inherent authority; this is as it should be. It is the people who shout "Science is a religion" who attempt to give weight to the title of "scientist." And to say that someone "is not a scientist" and discount her work because of it, or to say "this is true because scientists say so," is to fall into the logical trap of an appeal to authority. Appeals to authority are necessary to prop up religions, but in the realm of science they are considered a fallacy.
If anything, we need to use the term "scientist" MORE freely, because it drives home the point that science is democratic, available to all, "open-source" if you will. To make arbitrary statements about who is or is not a "real scientist" is to place science on a pedestal and reinforce the idea that it's "hard," and lend credence to the fallacy of an appeal to authority.
What I never understood was why the RIAA thinks that people listening to less music is a good thing, regardless of the reason.
Because the RIAA isn't about music. It's about money.
Artists hate dealing with business. Businesspeople know this, so they'll gladly flock to the "aid" of artists, telling them, "You just go and be artistic. We'll handle the business end for you." The trouble is that this lack of business savvy on the part of the artists attracts the bottom of the business barrel, the least scrupulous, most ambitious, laziest get-rich-quick bastards ever to earn an MBA.
They don't give two shits if you listen to music. They just want you to buy it, for as much as possible, as many times as possible.
Favorite artists who are on Warner labels get letters saying that their new albums will not be purchased as long as they continue to do business with Warner, along with a full explanation why.
Record companies don't care about their customers, but bands care about their fans. If we can get artists to jump ship to the companies that "get it" (or better yet, take the plunge and try self-distribution), and get the message out to new bands not to sign with the companies that don't get it, that will send make the message louder and more clearly than anything else. The media companies are not really the "content creators," as much as they like to throw the term around. The message can't just be "adapt or die;" it has to be "adapt or we (artists and fans alike) will kill you off."
Slashdot Mirror
I agree; they ought to follow the same rules as everyone else. Or switch to Linux, as the other post said.
Now, tell that to the shareholders of all the companies enjoying the fruits of all that cheap labor, all those folks who want profit at all costs.
You can't have your capitalist cake and eat it too. If you make the people you're exploiting "play by the rules," you're going to have to accept some lower profits, and I don't see a lot of companies doing that.
I'm not saying "yay pirates;" I'm just pointing out that things are never as black and white as the GP claimed.
Hmm...
Okay, but let's say every company in China that uses a computer to run its business suddenly had to purchase a full-price retail version of Windows for every computer they have. (I'm quite sure that most of them aren't running "legit" copies.)
Now, to come up with $150-300 per computer, they either raise their prices, or pay their workers less, or go out of business. This ends, or at least slows, the flow of cheap goods that has made our economy go over the past quarter-century or so. So in this case, purely hypothetical but likely pretty close to the truth, piracy of Microsoft's software actually helps the economy immensely. Right and wrong are never that simple.
And I'll even beat the "stealing" dead horse again and say that if someone figured out a way to duplicate my car (which is what we're talking about; no one "loses" their copy of Windows because someone pirates a disc), I'd be more than happy to let them, as long as they changed the license plate number so I could tell which one was mine.
They're seriously thick-headed enough to go after Creative Suite?
They get points for sheer balls, but trying to get Adobe users to even consider anything besides their beloved Illustrator or Photoshop is like talking to a particularly condescending brick wall. Take it from a Corel Draw user.
You're missing my point so entirely that I don't think I can effectively explain myself to you, but I'm going to try.
I'm not talking about appealing to the reason of the people who spew forth such hateful nonsense. But by censoring them, you're putting their bullshit outside the realm of criticism by other people. You ban a book, and it immediately gets read, especially by the young, who are now exposed to an idea that they know is considered rebellious, with no guidance whatsoever. They're going to think it's "cool," and all of a sudden the crazies have won another generation. If the book wasn't banned, they could be exposed to those ideas in a way that explains just how crazy and dangerous they are.
I'm not "shouting back a tidal wave." I'm saying, let's not build the next set of houses so close to the damn beach. I don't have the answer to the current crop of violent nutjobs out there, and neither do you. But we can sure as hell try to prevent making more of them.
I disagree 100%. The way to counter insanity is to refute it, not ban it. Banning it only promotes it. Dangerous ideas need to have the harsh light of reason shone on them to explain why they're so dangerous. Censorship is what really fans the flames of these ideas. No subject should be taboo, especially the dangerous ones.
That does sound like another fine product of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, doesn't it?
You're drifting dangerously close to all that "The Secret" woo-woo. Or are you a believer, trying to slip it in under the radar? Either way, I call bullshit before you even start.
Another great reference, if you're interested, is $30 Film School by Michael Dean. I bought it a couple years ago when I was going to make a short film (I still am; it's just on the back-burner right now).
This is the best way I can think of to stick it to the MPAA, though: Go make your OWN movie! You won't make any money, but DIY stuff always makes you feel good.
"I've got it right here, Mrs. Bueller! he has been absent nine times."
Oh, come ON!!! Dude, you're going to wear out your CTRL and V keys at this rate.
Either one of two things is true about this "post that won't die":
1) It's the shiniest green astroturf you ever saw, or
2) Someone thinks they're being funny.
Either way, ENOUGH already!
To the very very religious, everything involves God. He's not saying he is god, but I'm positive that he actually believes he is acting in His name.
Your Freudian slip is showing.
Not quite. It's the content rights-holders who are up in arms, and most of them couldn't create content if their lives depended on it.
All we're showing with the success of p2p networks and YouTube is that we don't need middlemen anymore. They're just dying really hard.
It's two-- two-- two scare tactics in one!
This is going to change car ads as we know them....
...Like, twelve... Hey, what's that backing-up-and-turning maneuver you're doing? ...Wish I could do that...
Young hipster: Hello, I'm a Scion XB.
Middle-age guy in a suit: And I'm a Ford Expedition.
YH: We both have four doors.
MAH: Four wheels.
YH: And an engine.
MAH: But that's where the similarities end. You see, I have room for seven.
YH: So? I have room for five.
MAH: And I can tow 6000 pounds.
YH: And yet, we both spend most of our time in traffic, with just one person inside. What's your MPG again?
MAH:
YH: It's called parallel parking.
MAH:
Don't you mean "Take off, hoser?"
Gives a whole new meaning to "viral marketing," doesn't it?
...is there really any threat whatsoever from these people?Well, they helped put Bush in office, so I'd say yeah...
Yes. Gravity is the tool of Satan, trying to pull everything down closer to Hell. You need to pray until you learn to fly, to avoid the Devil pulling you earthward.
(oh crap... I'm giving them ideas, aren't I?)
Wait, so when I got an XM radio in 2002 I was actually trendy for a few seconds? Cool!
She IS a scientist. I'm a scientist. If you know how science works, and you test hypotheses to eliminate the ones that don't work, you're a scientist. Track down a short in an electrical system, and you've just conducted a scientific inquiry. Now you're a scientist too.
The title "scientist" carries with it no inherent authority; this is as it should be. It is the people who shout "Science is a religion" who attempt to give weight to the title of "scientist." And to say that someone "is not a scientist" and discount her work because of it, or to say "this is true because scientists say so," is to fall into the logical trap of an appeal to authority. Appeals to authority are necessary to prop up religions, but in the realm of science they are considered a fallacy.
If anything, we need to use the term "scientist" MORE freely, because it drives home the point that science is democratic, available to all, "open-source" if you will. To make arbitrary statements about who is or is not a "real scientist" is to place science on a pedestal and reinforce the idea that it's "hard," and lend credence to the fallacy of an appeal to authority.
...Tenille Copyright, is said to be inconsolable. And they thought love would keep them together. The fools.
Because the RIAA isn't about music. It's about money.
Artists hate dealing with business. Businesspeople know this, so they'll gladly flock to the "aid" of artists, telling them, "You just go and be artistic. We'll handle the business end for you." The trouble is that this lack of business savvy on the part of the artists attracts the bottom of the business barrel, the least scrupulous, most ambitious, laziest get-rich-quick bastards ever to earn an MBA.
They don't give two shits if you listen to music. They just want you to buy it, for as much as possible, as many times as possible.
EMI (potentially) gets our business.
Warner does not.
Favorite artists who are on Warner labels get letters saying that their new albums will not be purchased as long as they continue to do business with Warner, along with a full explanation why.
Record companies don't care about their customers, but bands care about their fans. If we can get artists to jump ship to the companies that "get it" (or better yet, take the plunge and try self-distribution), and get the message out to new bands not to sign with the companies that don't get it, that will send make the message louder and more clearly than anything else. The media companies are not really the "content creators," as much as they like to throw the term around. The message can't just be "adapt or die;" it has to be "adapt or we (artists and fans alike) will kill you off."
They're painted blue underneath.