Well, that's the point : RyanFenton "informative" post is completely wrong, companies do not have the same rights as humans, and free speech does not apply to them. Even in the US. Fortunately for everybody.
I agree that one should not be forced to rent a song, DRM enforcement as dreamed by music industry is a bad thing etc. I contribute to FFII and I completely agree but that's was not the subject.
My point was to reply to this guy who seems to think that artists should be paid by the hour like "everybody else". Not everybody else get's paid by the hour in this world. In fact, not a single person in fortune 500 earned his money by being paid by the hour. And mostly they are not artists. Claiming that artists should be paid by the hour to justify the fact that people download music through emule is simply stupid and short sighted and I hate this.
Music and IP is a real debate, but the underlying debate is about profit, and limits to how one can build profit. And this goes farther than the music industry (e.g. should pharmaceutical industry gets paid by the hour ?).
By the way, when the time comes where you can *download* a labtop, I bet Dell will try to do exactly what music majors are doing now : find new ways to increase their profits, by renting things instead of selling them.
After all, the whole software industry is already taking this path (Google Office ?).
I completely disagree that an "artist" should get paid for the rest of their life for a song when the rest of the world gets paid by the hour Let's imagine a company which is manufacturing a product and selling it. The company is not paid "by the hour", the company gets paid as long as the product finds buyers. So maybe the company should stop making profits on selling this product as soon as the "hours" spent to "create" it have been re-paid ?
Which means, in fact, that the price of the product would just cover the development time, the manufacturing cost, thus no profit at all.
So it seems to me that by rejecting the way artists are making their living (and sometimes their fortune), you are in fact contesting the very basis of the profit based system we are linving in.
You are paid by the hour ? Well, in such a system, they are winner and loosers...
So, please be logical, and push your thinking to its end. You've found a way to deprive the artists of their profits. How will you deprive shareholders of theirs ?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's the point : RyanFenton "informative" post is completely wrong, companies do not have the same rights as humans, and free speech does not apply to them. Even in the US. Fortunately for everybody.
Oh. So companies have the right to vote, whetever "here" is ?
I agree that one should not be forced to rent a song, DRM enforcement as dreamed by music industry is a bad thing etc. I contribute to FFII and I completely agree but that's was not the subject.
My point was to reply to this guy who seems to think that artists should be paid by the hour like "everybody else". Not everybody else get's paid by the hour in this world. In fact, not a single person in fortune 500 earned his money by being paid by the hour. And mostly they are not artists. Claiming that artists should be paid by the hour to justify the fact that people download music through emule is simply stupid and short sighted and I hate this.
Music and IP is a real debate, but the underlying debate is about profit, and limits to how one can build profit. And this goes farther than the music industry (e.g. should pharmaceutical industry gets paid by the hour ?).
By the way, when the time comes where you can *download* a labtop, I bet Dell will try to do exactly what music majors are doing now : find new ways to increase their profits, by renting things instead of selling them.
After all, the whole software industry is already taking this path (Google Office ?).
Which means, in fact, that the price of the product would just cover the development time, the manufacturing cost, thus no profit at all.
So it seems to me that by rejecting the way artists are making their living (and sometimes their fortune), you are in fact contesting the very basis of the profit based system we are linving in.
You are paid by the hour ? Well, in such a system, they are winner and loosers...
So, please be logical, and push your thinking to its end. You've found a way to deprive the artists of their profits. How will you deprive shareholders of theirs ? :-)
They Shoot Horses, Don't They