Maybe I just didn't follow you, but I think your drug argument ignores the development/testing cost of making drugs. Imagine Drug Company A spends $500 million developing an AIDS drug and then produces it at $1 a pill and sells it at $2. They must sell 500 million pills to recoup their investment.
If Drug Company B comes along and manages to produce the pill at $1.50, but didn't have to do the research and regulatory testing, they make money from the start.
Manufacturing costs are only a small portion of the cost of producing a drug. Allowing another drug company to compete only on manufacturing gives them a tremendous advantage. Patents allow Drug Company A to recoup their investment.
Your argument conveniently ignores the fantastic risk drug companies face when they develop a new drug. If it doesn't work the way the think it will, they face bankruptcy. Why would anyone take that risk if Joe Blow is going to export production to China and sell at half your price? Clearly patents have a use in this situation.
This is also the community that scoffed at the idea of washing hands between various medical activities, and the idea that tiny little things you couldn't see could kill you. And yet, the majority believes in them today. Which goes to show that scientists are human too, and prone to fuck up. They tend to be right more in their fields of study, not unlike any other expert, which is not to say they have the definitive answer on god.
I love this post!
Let me paraphrase your argument: "Christianity has value because scientists have made errors in the past."
So we should distrust science which has constantly changed its ideas to fit the facts and instead trust religion which has constantly changed the facts to fit its ideas? You might as well tell people their children are safer inside a war zone because once the play-school had a small fire.
The answer is simple. Just don't start a business in the U.S.
Business leaving the U.S. because of this chilling effect may not be fully measurable yet, but it is surely having some effect. The question is how long will the U.S. government allow it to continue before they correct it? Will it be before China rules the world (when the U.S. decision might matter), or after (when it will be too late)?
I think a more likely explanation is that you're simply not privy to their actual strategy. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
Consider the evidence. The RIAA/MPAA have access to the finest legal minds money can buy, and have spent years of time and millions of dollars on this issue. You are likely not a lawyer, and likely have not spent years or any money at all on this issue. Is it more likely that you, in your brilliance, have seen something they have not, or is it more likely that you just don't know what they're doing? Clearly, it must serve some purpose which they deem worthy of the effort spent on this project. Assume they are fools at your own peril.
I have nothing against your personally, but many people share your view. It assumes that the RIAA is run by idiots, and this is unlikely. I think the RIAA/MPAA need to be destroyed, but we will almost certainly fail in this task if we continue to underestimate their intelligence.
Hah! That's what I was thinking. I would have stated it like this:
"A better question would be, why don't I know anything about the rest of the world? Surely, if Libertarians were active in the politics of other countries I would have heard about it...somehow...in a country famous for knowing nothing about the outside world."
So yes, the difference between cult and religion is that the former wants compensation for belief, while the latter does not anymore. But both can cause believers to do terrible things.
There, fixed that for you. The Roman Catholic church used to offer to allow your loved ones to leave hell if you contributed towards the construction of a cathedral. Same shit. Different century.
What struck me from the article, and what I think applies to your arguments, is the wide range of places that people are now listening to music. We're not listening to music in places that are conducive to a wide dynamic response. My headphones on the Tube need to be fantastic* to make me able to enjoy the highs and lows. For everyone else, compression is good.
* In fact, they are. Etymotic ER-4S headphones inserted into custom moulded ear plugs. It is a wonderful priviledge to enjoy a Debussey piano prelude whilst commuting.
Well said. Linux is made by software engineers for software engineers. It will never gain a sizable user base (which is the only success criteria that matters) until they take the users into account.
You boys just can't thank outside the (idiot) box, can you?
Here's why your argument makes no sense:
1. I prefer high production values too. Happily, as I've said several times before, the technology exists and is cheaply available to produce high quality media. So it's possible, affordable, and do-able.
2. Do you really believe that the current material on You Tube is as good as it gets? Especially considering that (as we've gone over so many times) the technology exists cheaply to make studio quality productions? If there was even the smallest revenue stream from videos, and no corporation to spoon feed us, every artist in the world is going to grab their camera and record their dream in hopes that maybe they will make it big. There will be a lot of shit (hell, there's a lot of shit now), but there will be cream, and (SHOCKING!) the technology exists to help it rise to the top.
Your argument basically amounts to: "It is not possible for an artist to produce a high quality product because there is lots of low quality product."
Ah, now that I understand you better I'll argue a little more vehemently.
By your logic, then, culture started when corporations did? That seems a little short-sighted, doesn't it?
Which corporation supported Mozart? Bach? You may say, "The King of Austria", or "The Church", but what you'd really mean is "A Patron". There's no reason that couldn't happen again. Hell, it seemed to work for thousands of years before this last century.
And that still ignores the possibilities for revenue generation that the internet brings. An artist who made $1 per album sold "pre-fall-of-corporations" might make $10,000 selling 10,000 albums. An artist "post-fall-of-corporations" would make $10 per album sold (i.e. the entire sale price) and enjoy the same profit selling only 1000 albums. There will be a revenue stream, my erstwhile opponent, just not the one you're used to.
You ascribe far too much intelligence to me. I did not intend to deceive anyone. I simply hoped to say that the means exist to have a vibrant arts culture without corporations, but we cannot have it until the corporations are gone. I fail to see how I was being deceitful.
Your post is so damned confusing, I sadly can only reply to the parts that make sense.
Let's put this "the gravy-train will go on" argument to a test. How about we start abusing OSS any way we can. From verbally assulting them, to violating their licenses. According to you even if the OSS well dried up something (contrary to human nature) will come along and fill the void, AND it will produce code better and consistenly than before, even when faced with a hostile audience.
I in no way implied the gravy-train would go on. It most certainly won't, and that is a good thing. Very few artists make any money from their work. The technology exists (whether you like it or not) to produce, distribute, advertise, and gather revenue from media without the RIAA. Why do you think they're pushing so hard against anything that cuts in to their profits? We don't need them anymore, and they know it. Read some history. This very same thing has happened time and time again (tailors and sewing machines, flint mines) and will happen here.
Your OSS argument holds no water either. OSS is not a monopoly that keeps tight control on all code. You've got it precisely backwards. Restate your argument using "Microsoft" instead of "OSS" and you will have proved my point exactly. Irony is delicious, isn't it?
Geeks and your damn faith in technology. The issue isn't technological, it's social.
I fail to see how my sentence is anything other than a technical statement. Do you disagree that modern technology allows me, with $400, to record an album superior to anything released more than 10 years ago?
You imply that if the current system were gone, there would be nothing to replace it. I disagree. Something will replace it (for humans have always told stories). In fact, I think that whatever replaces it will actually be much better.
Technology now allows anyone with minimal finance to create their own movies or music. What will happen, when the current colossus tumbles, is that you will experience more and better movies and music than you ever dreamed possible. Certainly, at the beginning there will be less big budget action spectaculars, but honestly, is that a bad thing?
With the current gate keepers gone and the internet there to do the distribution, a much brighter and vibrant world awaits. We should do all we can to hasten the demise of the media industry.
Re:This is also the Pirate Party's stance
on
Patents Don't Pay
·
· Score: 1
Since you work in the industry, you are probably a bit biased. But here's my $.02:
Allow me to translate: "Since your opinion is informed, it must be biased. I am more trustworthy because I don't know what I'm talking about."
...doing the same action and expecting a different outcome?
Let's see. They released this information 1 week after the launch. I wonder, did some report come back and they just learned how much it cost, or did they know all along and kept their mouths shut? I think we both know which one it is.
I went and read the ZDnet article, and in a delicious bit of irony, there was a Microsoft ad about their Forefront security product playing on the page. Brilliant!
Maybe you already know this, but I believe the RockBox firmware has some features for blind people including some element of voice commands. It can be used on many mp3 players.
I hear this sentiment echoed a lot on Slashdot, and I believe it is fundamentally flawed.
You are assuming a few things that, once laid bare, I believe you will find non-sensical.
1. Microsoft will do something that will hurt its bottom line.
Do you really believe this? I find it unlikely.
2. Microsoft is doing something stupid.
Microsoft has the money to attract the brightest minds in the world. Do you honestly believe that no one at Microsoft has considered the point you just raised? Isn't it more likely that they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars studying your argument very carefully, with the brightest and best lawyers and managers and business strategists scrutinizing every possible contingency?
3. If Microsoft is wrong, they will keep doing the wrong action until the company folds.
This is the one that most people slip up on. Bearing in mind that (1) Microsoft will never do anything to hurt its bottom line, and (2) the best minds are constantly analyzing what Microsoft is doing, you'd better believe that (3) if they started to screw up, they would change direction.
In conclusion: Microsoft will continue to add hindrances to piracy, even if they inconvenience customers. They are very carefully watching customer reaction, and will only change any policy when these customers stop buying. The fact that Microsoft continues to effect increasingly draconian controls indicates that the public does not care. Yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I just didn't follow you, but I think your drug argument ignores the development/testing cost of making drugs. Imagine Drug Company A spends $500 million developing an AIDS drug and then produces it at $1 a pill and sells it at $2. They must sell 500 million pills to recoup their investment.
If Drug Company B comes along and manages to produce the pill at $1.50, but didn't have to do the research and regulatory testing, they make money from the start.
Manufacturing costs are only a small portion of the cost of producing a drug. Allowing another drug company to compete only on manufacturing gives them a tremendous advantage. Patents allow Drug Company A to recoup their investment.
Your argument conveniently ignores the fantastic risk drug companies face when they develop a new drug. If it doesn't work the way the think it will, they face bankruptcy. Why would anyone take that risk if Joe Blow is going to export production to China and sell at half your price? Clearly patents have a use in this situation.
I love this post!
Let me paraphrase your argument: "Christianity has value because scientists have made errors in the past."
So we should distrust science which has constantly changed its ideas to fit the facts and instead trust religion which has constantly changed the facts to fit its ideas? You might as well tell people their children are safer inside a war zone because once the play-school had a small fire.
Idiot.
Well, mission accomplished.
:)
Baaazzing!!
The answer is simple. Just don't start a business in the U.S.
Business leaving the U.S. because of this chilling effect may not be fully measurable yet, but it is surely having some effect. The question is how long will the U.S. government allow it to continue before they correct it? Will it be before China rules the world (when the U.S. decision might matter), or after (when it will be too late)?
I think a more likely explanation is that you're simply not privy to their actual strategy. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
Consider the evidence. The RIAA/MPAA have access to the finest legal minds money can buy, and have spent years of time and millions of dollars on this issue. You are likely not a lawyer, and likely have not spent years or any money at all on this issue. Is it more likely that you, in your brilliance, have seen something they have not, or is it more likely that you just don't know what they're doing? Clearly, it must serve some purpose which they deem worthy of the effort spent on this project. Assume they are fools at your own peril.
I have nothing against your personally, but many people share your view. It assumes that the RIAA is run by idiots, and this is unlikely. I think the RIAA/MPAA need to be destroyed, but we will almost certainly fail in this task if we continue to underestimate their intelligence.
hrrmmmmmm...Speak like Yoda, you do.
Hah! That's what I was thinking. I would have stated it like this:
"A better question would be, why don't I know anything about the rest of the world? Surely, if Libertarians were active in the politics of other countries I would have heard about it...somehow...in a country famous for knowing nothing about the outside world."
Anyways, funny stuff.
There, fixed that for you. The Roman Catholic church used to offer to allow your loved ones to leave hell if you contributed towards the construction of a cathedral. Same shit. Different century.
For the most part, I agree with you.
What struck me from the article, and what I think applies to your arguments, is the wide range of places that people are now listening to music. We're not listening to music in places that are conducive to a wide dynamic response. My headphones on the Tube need to be fantastic* to make me able to enjoy the highs and lows. For everyone else, compression is good.
* In fact, they are. Etymotic ER-4S headphones inserted into custom moulded ear plugs. It is a wonderful priviledge to enjoy a Debussey piano prelude whilst commuting.
Good sir, if you honestly believe that is all it would be used for, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
Well said. Linux is made by software engineers for software engineers. It will never gain a sizable user base (which is the only success criteria that matters) until they take the users into account.
You boys just can't thank outside the (idiot) box, can you?
Here's why your argument makes no sense:
1. I prefer high production values too. Happily, as I've said several times before, the technology exists and is cheaply available to produce high quality media. So it's possible, affordable, and do-able.
2. Do you really believe that the current material on You Tube is as good as it gets? Especially considering that (as we've gone over so many times) the technology exists cheaply to make studio quality productions? If there was even the smallest revenue stream from videos, and no corporation to spoon feed us, every artist in the world is going to grab their camera and record their dream in hopes that maybe they will make it big. There will be a lot of shit (hell, there's a lot of shit now), but there will be cream, and (SHOCKING!) the technology exists to help it rise to the top.
Your argument basically amounts to: "It is not possible for an artist to produce a high quality product because there is lots of low quality product."
Ah, now that I understand you better I'll argue a little more vehemently.
By your logic, then, culture started when corporations did? That seems a little short-sighted, doesn't it?
Which corporation supported Mozart? Bach? You may say, "The King of Austria", or "The Church", but what you'd really mean is "A Patron". There's no reason that couldn't happen again. Hell, it seemed to work for thousands of years before this last century.
And that still ignores the possibilities for revenue generation that the internet brings. An artist who made $1 per album sold "pre-fall-of-corporations" might make $10,000 selling 10,000 albums. An artist "post-fall-of-corporations" would make $10 per album sold (i.e. the entire sale price) and enjoy the same profit selling only 1000 albums. There will be a revenue stream, my erstwhile opponent, just not the one you're used to.
You ascribe far too much intelligence to me. I did not intend to deceive anyone. I simply hoped to say that the means exist to have a vibrant arts culture without corporations, but we cannot have it until the corporations are gone. I fail to see how I was being deceitful.
I in no way implied the gravy-train would go on. It most certainly won't, and that is a good thing. Very few artists make any money from their work. The technology exists (whether you like it or not) to produce, distribute, advertise, and gather revenue from media without the RIAA. Why do you think they're pushing so hard against anything that cuts in to their profits? We don't need them anymore, and they know it. Read some history. This very same thing has happened time and time again (tailors and sewing machines, flint mines) and will happen here.
Your OSS argument holds no water either. OSS is not a monopoly that keeps tight control on all code. You've got it precisely backwards. Restate your argument using "Microsoft" instead of "OSS" and you will have proved my point exactly. Irony is delicious, isn't it?
I fail to see how my sentence is anything other than a technical statement. Do you disagree that modern technology allows me, with $400, to record an album superior to anything released more than 10 years ago?
Thanks and good night!
You imply that if the current system were gone, there would be nothing to replace it. I disagree. Something will replace it (for humans have always told stories). In fact, I think that whatever replaces it will actually be much better.
Technology now allows anyone with minimal finance to create their own movies or music. What will happen, when the current colossus tumbles, is that you will experience more and better movies and music than you ever dreamed possible. Certainly, at the beginning there will be less big budget action spectaculars, but honestly, is that a bad thing?
With the current gate keepers gone and the internet there to do the distribution, a much brighter and vibrant world awaits. We should do all we can to hasten the demise of the media industry.
Allow me to translate: "Since your opinion is informed, it must be biased. I am more trustworthy because I don't know what I'm talking about."
Dyslexics of the world: UNTIE!
So basically, I, the consumer, get screwed both by what he is barganing for and what he is barganing with. Wonderful.
...doing the same action and expecting a different outcome?
Let's see. They released this information 1 week after the launch. I wonder, did some report come back and they just learned how much it cost, or did they know all along and kept their mouths shut? I think we both know which one it is.
Unfortunately, they are working on 100% surveillance.
I went and read the ZDnet article, and in a delicious bit of irony, there was a Microsoft ad about their Forefront security product playing on the page. Brilliant!
Maybe you already know this, but I believe the RockBox firmware has some features for blind people including some element of voice commands. It can be used on many mp3 players.
I read your arcticle and signed the petition.
Also, I came across your cartoons and enjoyed them. Thanks.
I hear this sentiment echoed a lot on Slashdot, and I believe it is fundamentally flawed.
You are assuming a few things that, once laid bare, I believe you will find non-sensical.
1. Microsoft will do something that will hurt its bottom line.
Do you really believe this? I find it unlikely.
2. Microsoft is doing something stupid.
Microsoft has the money to attract the brightest minds in the world. Do you honestly believe that no one at Microsoft has considered the point you just raised? Isn't it more likely that they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars studying your argument very carefully, with the brightest and best lawyers and managers and business strategists scrutinizing every possible contingency?
3. If Microsoft is wrong, they will keep doing the wrong action until the company folds.
This is the one that most people slip up on. Bearing in mind that (1) Microsoft will never do anything to hurt its bottom line, and (2) the best minds are constantly analyzing what Microsoft is doing, you'd better believe that (3) if they started to screw up, they would change direction.
In conclusion: Microsoft will continue to add hindrances to piracy, even if they inconvenience customers. They are very carefully watching customer reaction, and will only change any policy when these customers stop buying. The fact that Microsoft continues to effect increasingly draconian controls indicates that the public does not care. Yet.