Some interesting points, some horrible. I'll reply to one that I actually find offensive.
Why not get back the good thing about the medieval times - patronization of artists and their works?
Many of the greatest musical geniuses in history spent their life in a demeaning position of house entertainers for their rich patrons, because there was no other way to make a living. Some of the greatest painters in history spent their life painting scenes from the Bible because the catholic church was their patron. Soviet artists wrote, painted and composed art that glorified communism because a communist state was their patron. This is one thing I do NOT want to see ever again.
You don't really think that's a viable alternative to the current system? So every writer, musician, film studio etc will set up a little fund and will only start working once it fills up, right? Until then, they will just sit around and keep that masterpiece they have in mind on the shelf somewhere until enough people have paid? How will you persuade sufficient numbers of people to pay even though they know that what they are paying for won't come to fruition until years from now, if ever? Someone has to keep track of who paid what, so that in case the artist changes his mind (or gets sick, or dies) everything can be paid back. Do you have any concept of the scale and inefficiency of that system given the huge numbers of content creators out there?
Your entire posts makes a lot of sense in the context of the current copyright based system, but it doesn't make any sense with copyright gone.
What's the advantage of being first to market when your competitor is offering exactly the same copy for free the very next day or even hour. Remember, there is no DRM, no barriers whatsoever to making as many copies as you want and distributing as far and wide if you like. In theory the first person to buy it will post a copy of it online so everybody else can download it for free. How do you get the endorsement from the author? You pay them for it? How, if you don't have any expectation of profit?
Your example of what happens in deadtree world (such as with 911 report) just proves my point. The only reason that works is exactly what you say, obstacles in copying, formatting etc. If making copying difficult is what you want, then you should be in favor of some flavor of copy protection software (gasp DRM?) that makes copying difficult or impossible, right? But aren't those obstacles exactly what you want to remove?
because the 99% of artists who don't manage to sell enough to make a living would now be on equal footing with the 1% who have major advertising dollars behind them.
By making those 1% not make any money either? What good does that do? In any case, I think that 99% is a huge exaggeration but even if it wasn't it doesn't change anything. Why should those who don't sell enough to make a living be on equal footing with those who do?
your failure to monetize content in a digital marketplace is not my problem. if media can be copied perfectly, and for free, no artificial limitations will be successful. content creators will be forced to make money on things that are not infinitely reproducible.
Aha, this is the point of the whole argument, isn't it. It can be done, so people will do it, no way to stop it. Well, first of all it hasn't been conclusively proven that that's the case. Secondly, even if it was, that still doesn't address the basic problem of rights of authors to be paid for their work, and the lack of a viable alternative system that will retain that incentive. You mention your local band, but I bet they are only playing in your local bar because they are hoping that they will some day be able to get a bigger audience and more money, and this, until a better alternative is found, still involves copyright. If you want to reduce every musician to the level of that band, living on tips and at the mercy of musically illiterate bar owners, there won't be much music left.
Without copyright, it is not only commercially viable to create* content, but would lead to a much healthier, competitive environment aswell.
Care to elaborate? Let's take an example: some entrepreneurial guy puts up freeamazon.com - same as amazon.com except that all the content (well, at least books, movies, software and music - thinks that can be copied easily) is free. The way it's done is simple, each new release is bought and a free copy is posted so that anybody can download it for free. Perhaps the owner of the site doesn't even need to buy it, simply provide a place for someone to upload. Surely without copyright this would happen very quickly since the site would receive enormous traffic and the owners would get rich. How exactly would this make it "commercially viable to create content" since only one copy will be sold? How would it lead to a "healthier, competitive environment"?
I didn't say it was, the whole socialism thing just came up separately. I took die-hard socialists simply as an example of people who won't listen to reason and people seem to have taken an issue with that, hence this thread.
First of all, I would advise you to seriously think about why are you getting so vicious over an issue like this. Maybe time to contact a mental health professional if you haven't already before you get physically violent with someone. Or perhaps you are one of those quiet types who puts up with shit all day and then vents all the pent up anger online. posting as nonymous coward of all things?
Anyway, people have been creating content for millenia, but never on anywhere near scale of today. Not by a factor of 100. The reason for that is that due to copyright protection, artists, writers, musicians etc can for the first time in history make a good living out of their talent and not depend on pity of some "patron" like some of the greatest musicians in history had to.
I think it's an overkill to put it in a museum. It might be in the news now (and even then only nerds seem to be even aware of the law suit in question) but it will be forgotten in a year or two. "Important part of Swedish history"... people have lost all sense of proportion
Putting ambigous monopoly on information is not only paramountly stupid in the information age
If by "information" you mean things commonly shared through pirate bay, then did it ever occur to you that the production of such material would essentially grind to a halt without that monopoly?
They'd only be out of business if their work sucked. People, in general, support things they like.
So people will pay for something they like and if they don't like it they won't pay for it? How is that any different from the current situation. Seems like you are only adding an option to legally get it for free as well. Why?
Not to mention all the added value inherent in buying (DRM free) physical media, and the monetization opportunities for the actual artists when their fans have free access to their work.I would suggest you look at the business model that Trent Reznor is creating, in my opinion he is years ahead of the rest of the industry.
That might apply to musicians (concerts etc) but how does it apply to writers? How do they make money if their books are free. Same for software and movie companies.
Most of the "civilized" world is run by a watered down version of free-market capitalism with social services thrown in. Even Labour party in UK have realized that private capital is the most effective driving force of an economy ever known and so have most of the other former left wing parties out there. Nobody serious is promoting state ownership of industry as was the case all over the Europe just a few decades ago.
I don't know about your culture, but here in Sweden we stop calling ideas "childish" before the end of the primary school.
Why? Sometimes they are.
You argue like a little kid.
Because the argument in question is so ridiculous that it hardly deserves a serious rebuttal other than ridicule.
For you others: The cost of creating artificial monopolies like a copy monopoly or a patent monopoly is way larger than simply tax people and give the creators money. You all know this (unless you're stupid like clarkkent09), but for some odd reason you're fooled to think that a total forbidding of copying is less bad than a tax that at least makes it possible, even though more expensive.
If I understand correctly, you are proposing to tax everybody and pass on the money to the artists, i.e. creating a complete state control over culture. Who will decide which artists get the money and which other unfortunate ones will be taxed in order to finance the chosen ones? Why should people who passionately dislike certain artists be forced to finance them? If you have evidence that the cost of enforcing copyright is greater than the total profits on the copyrighted works please present it. It seems extremely unlikely. Btw, what do patents have to do with anything? You want to abolish them too?
Stealing from common people and giving to the rich, while forbidding the poor to take part of the culture.
Calm down Lenin, you are getting carried away. Please think about each part of that sentence for a minute and then go back to your igloo to cool down a bit.
Let me ask you something. If there were no legal and technical hurdles to file sharing, there would be some sort of "freeamazon.com" where all current music, books and software in the world can be downloaded for free, right? After all, with all that traffic, the owners of that site would make a killing, and there would be no legal problem in simply ripping each new release that comes out and posting it there. Wouldn't that mean that the people who write those books, companies that create all those applications, games etc and artists and recording companies who write and produce all that music, and studios who make all those movies would be out of business instantly? How would they justify the investment in money, time and work that they made if only one copy will ever be sold?
I really hope that this Pirate party gets elected to power in Sweden and abolish the copyright laws. The economic chaos that would ensue and the ridicule that that country would be subjected to worldwide would hopefully make even the most pea brained anti-copyright wannabe crusader realize what a stupid and childish idea that is.
But then there are still socialists around even after miserable failures that system brought to every country where it was tried so I guess some people just can't be convinced.
We won't tell them what to say, nor will we censor or edit any of their content.
But we gave them a free car so out of a 100 people majority are probably going to feel bad about writing something negative. It could backfire badly if the car turns out to be a pos, but if the car is at least half decent this seems like a nice marketing move.
Btw, if Lamborghini ever decides to employ the same strategy let me be the first to volunteer
This looks like a clever anti shark plot to me. Eventually the curved beam will go all the way around and kill the shark itself. No thanks, I'm sticking to straight shooting lasers on my sharks. Nice try, Austin.
US example, but many other countries have strict laws about spreading false rumors about the stock market. Sort of like yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Now, this guy may or may not have been telling the truth, but that's a matter of fact, not principle. In principle, exactly the same thing could happen here.
Polished UI on a phone is worth something though. It's nice to have a phone that does fewer things but it's a pleasure to use. Like any phone, it's too small to do any serious work with, and the things I, and I dare say most other people, use it for the most often - email, sms, gps, internet (quick lookups, too small for anything else), ipod and (gasp) making phone calls - it does incredibly well, far better than any other phone I know of.
Yes, cut and paste and one or two other things are sorely missed, but honestly all these other features people are asking for just make me worried if the future versions will have the clean and beautiful interface like the last one. "Power users", while the most vocal, tend to be a small part of the market. Hope Apple keep their head and not trip over themselves trying to please that segment of the market and make the product cluttered, ugly and crash prone like all the other "smart" phones out there.
the world's first flying micro-robot capable of manipulating objects for micro-scale applications, which include... microsurgery.
Congratulations University of Waterloo, you get the award for the most sensationalist spin ever given to a magnetically levitated piece of metal. In other news, following this success, all makers of levitating pen novelty toys are rebranding their products as "flying pen assassin robots" (ninja not included).
*Ahem* this is the real world, intention and result... don't match.
Not if the intention was to give certain industry 8 billion dollars. Then the intention and the result match perfectly. Incompetence is only one of the major problems with the big government, corruption is another.
Being a jerk in order to piss someone off is not funny, as their annoying cartoons show, nor it is a great achievement unless you are 13 years old, as you probably are.
Slashdot Mirror
Some interesting points, some horrible. I'll reply to one that I actually find offensive.
Why not get back the good thing about the medieval times - patronization of artists and their works?
Many of the greatest musical geniuses in history spent their life in a demeaning position of house entertainers for their rich patrons, because there was no other way to make a living. Some of the greatest painters in history spent their life painting scenes from the Bible because the catholic church was their patron. Soviet artists wrote, painted and composed art that glorified communism because a communist state was their patron. This is one thing I do NOT want to see ever again.
You don't really think that's a viable alternative to the current system? So every writer, musician, film studio etc will set up a little fund and will only start working once it fills up, right? Until then, they will just sit around and keep that masterpiece they have in mind on the shelf somewhere until enough people have paid? How will you persuade sufficient numbers of people to pay even though they know that what they are paying for won't come to fruition until years from now, if ever? Someone has to keep track of who paid what, so that in case the artist changes his mind (or gets sick, or dies) everything can be paid back. Do you have any concept of the scale and inefficiency of that system given the huge numbers of content creators out there?
Your entire posts makes a lot of sense in the context of the current copyright based system, but it doesn't make any sense with copyright gone.
What's the advantage of being first to market when your competitor is offering exactly the same copy for free the very next day or even hour. Remember, there is no DRM, no barriers whatsoever to making as many copies as you want and distributing as far and wide if you like. In theory the first person to buy it will post a copy of it online so everybody else can download it for free. How do you get the endorsement from the author? You pay them for it? How, if you don't have any expectation of profit?
Your example of what happens in deadtree world (such as with 911 report) just proves my point. The only reason that works is exactly what you say, obstacles in copying, formatting etc. If making copying difficult is what you want, then you should be in favor of some flavor of copy protection software (gasp DRM?) that makes copying difficult or impossible, right? But aren't those obstacles exactly what you want to remove?
because the 99% of artists who don't manage to sell enough to make a living would now be on equal footing with the 1% who have major advertising dollars behind them.
By making those 1% not make any money either? What good does that do? In any case, I think that 99% is a huge exaggeration but even if it wasn't it doesn't change anything. Why should those who don't sell enough to make a living be on equal footing with those who do?
your failure to monetize content in a digital marketplace is not my problem. if media can be copied perfectly, and for free, no artificial limitations will be successful. content creators will be forced to make money on things that are not infinitely reproducible.
Aha, this is the point of the whole argument, isn't it. It can be done, so people will do it, no way to stop it. Well, first of all it hasn't been conclusively proven that that's the case. Secondly, even if it was, that still doesn't address the basic problem of rights of authors to be paid for their work, and the lack of a viable alternative system that will retain that incentive. You mention your local band, but I bet they are only playing in your local bar because they are hoping that they will some day be able to get a bigger audience and more money, and this, until a better alternative is found, still involves copyright. If you want to reduce every musician to the level of that band, living on tips and at the mercy of musically illiterate bar owners, there won't be much music left.
Without copyright, it is not only commercially viable to create* content, but would lead to a much healthier, competitive environment aswell.
Care to elaborate? Let's take an example: some entrepreneurial guy puts up freeamazon.com - same as amazon.com except that all the content (well, at least books, movies, software and music - thinks that can be copied easily) is free. The way it's done is simple, each new release is bought and a free copy is posted so that anybody can download it for free. Perhaps the owner of the site doesn't even need to buy it, simply provide a place for someone to upload. Surely without copyright this would happen very quickly since the site would receive enormous traffic and the owners would get rich. How exactly would this make it "commercially viable to create content" since only one copy will be sold? How would it lead to a "healthier, competitive environment"?
I didn't say it was, the whole socialism thing just came up separately. I took die-hard socialists simply as an example of people who won't listen to reason and people seem to have taken an issue with that, hence this thread.
First of all, I would advise you to seriously think about why are you getting so vicious over an issue like this. Maybe time to contact a mental health professional if you haven't already before you get physically violent with someone. Or perhaps you are one of those quiet types who puts up with shit all day and then vents all the pent up anger online. posting as nonymous coward of all things?
Anyway, people have been creating content for millenia, but never on anywhere near scale of today. Not by a factor of 100. The reason for that is that due to copyright protection, artists, writers, musicians etc can for the first time in history make a good living out of their talent and not depend on pity of some "patron" like some of the greatest musicians in history had to.
I think it's an overkill to put it in a museum. It might be in the news now (and even then only nerds seem to be even aware of the law suit in question) but it will be forgotten in a year or two. "Important part of Swedish history" ... people have lost all sense of proportion
Putting ambigous monopoly on information is not only paramountly stupid in the information age
If by "information" you mean things commonly shared through pirate bay, then did it ever occur to you that the production of such material would essentially grind to a halt without that monopoly?
I don't think socialism means what you think it means. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1203171&cid=27621599
They'd only be out of business if their work sucked. People, in general, support things they like.
So people will pay for something they like and if they don't like it they won't pay for it? How is that any different from the current situation. Seems like you are only adding an option to legally get it for free as well. Why?
Not to mention all the added value inherent in buying (DRM free) physical media, and the monetization opportunities for the actual artists when their fans have free access to their work.I would suggest you look at the business model that Trent Reznor is creating, in my opinion he is years ahead of the rest of the industry.
That might apply to musicians (concerts etc) but how does it apply to writers? How do they make money if their books are free. Same for software and movie companies.
Most of the "civilized" world is run by a watered down version of free-market capitalism with social services thrown in. Even Labour party in UK have realized that private capital is the most effective driving force of an economy ever known and so have most of the other former left wing parties out there. Nobody serious is promoting state ownership of industry as was the case all over the Europe just a few decades ago.
I don't know about your culture, but here in Sweden we stop calling ideas "childish" before the end of the primary school.
Why? Sometimes they are.
You argue like a little kid.
Because the argument in question is so ridiculous that it hardly deserves a serious rebuttal other than ridicule.
For you others: The cost of creating artificial monopolies like a copy monopoly or a patent monopoly is way larger than simply tax people and give the creators money. You all know this (unless you're stupid like clarkkent09), but for some odd reason you're fooled to think that a total forbidding of copying is less bad than a tax that at least makes it possible, even though more expensive.
If I understand correctly, you are proposing to tax everybody and pass on the money to the artists, i.e. creating a complete state control over culture. Who will decide which artists get the money and which other unfortunate ones will be taxed in order to finance the chosen ones? Why should people who passionately dislike certain artists be forced to finance them? If you have evidence that the cost of enforcing copyright is greater than the total profits on the copyrighted works please present it. It seems extremely unlikely. Btw, what do patents have to do with anything? You want to abolish them too?
Stealing from common people and giving to the rich, while forbidding the poor to take part of the culture.
Calm down Lenin, you are getting carried away. Please think about each part of that sentence for a minute and then go back to your igloo to cool down a bit.
Let me ask you something. If there were no legal and technical hurdles to file sharing, there would be some sort of "freeamazon.com" where all current music, books and software in the world can be downloaded for free, right? After all, with all that traffic, the owners of that site would make a killing, and there would be no legal problem in simply ripping each new release that comes out and posting it there. Wouldn't that mean that the people who write those books, companies that create all those applications, games etc and artists and recording companies who write and produce all that music, and studios who make all those movies would be out of business instantly? How would they justify the investment in money, time and work that they made if only one copy will ever be sold?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
I really hope that this Pirate party gets elected to power in Sweden and abolish the copyright laws. The economic chaos that would ensue and the ridicule that that country would be subjected to worldwide would hopefully make even the most pea brained anti-copyright wannabe crusader realize what a stupid and childish idea that is.
But then there are still socialists around even after miserable failures that system brought to every country where it was tried so I guess some people just can't be convinced.
We won't tell them what to say, nor will we censor or edit any of their content.
But we gave them a free car so out of a 100 people majority are probably going to feel bad about writing something negative. It could backfire badly if the car turns out to be a pos, but if the car is at least half decent this seems like a nice marketing move.
Btw, if Lamborghini ever decides to employ the same strategy let me be the first to volunteer
Staring at one of these LEDs from close range will erase the ugliness of the linked site from your memory. Try it
This looks like a clever anti shark plot to me. Eventually the curved beam will go all the way around and kill the shark itself. No thanks, I'm sticking to straight shooting lasers on my sharks. Nice try, Austin.
Google HYIP:
http://www.google.com/search?q=hyip
There is a whole parallel universe of ponzi schemes out there. Big deal that it's on youtube.
Disclaimer: If you find yourself thinking about investing in one of those shoot yourself in the head immediately
I don't think this case is as unusual or remote as you think:
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-64.htm
US example, but many other countries have strict laws about spreading false rumors about the stock market. Sort of like yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Now, this guy may or may not have been telling the truth, but that's a matter of fact, not principle. In principle, exactly the same thing could happen here.
Polished UI on a phone is worth something though. It's nice to have a phone that does fewer things but it's a pleasure to use. Like any phone, it's too small to do any serious work with, and the things I, and I dare say most other people, use it for the most often - email, sms, gps, internet (quick lookups, too small for anything else), ipod and (gasp) making phone calls - it does incredibly well, far better than any other phone I know of.
Yes, cut and paste and one or two other things are sorely missed, but honestly all these other features people are asking for just make me worried if the future versions will have the clean and beautiful interface like the last one. "Power users", while the most vocal, tend to be a small part of the market. Hope Apple keep their head and not trip over themselves trying to please that segment of the market and make the product cluttered, ugly and crash prone like all the other "smart" phones out there.
the world's first flying micro-robot capable of manipulating objects for micro-scale applications, which include ... microsurgery.
Congratulations University of Waterloo, you get the award for the most sensationalist spin ever given to a magnetically levitated piece of metal. In other news, following this success, all makers of levitating pen novelty toys are rebranding their products as "flying pen assassin robots" (ninja not included).
*Ahem* this is the real world, intention and result ... don't match.
Not if the intention was to give certain industry 8 billion dollars. Then the intention and the result match perfectly. Incompetence is only one of the major problems with the big government, corruption is another.
A lot of the world including Oracle uses Java. I don't think they would do anything to sabotage Java if they did get to own it
Being a jerk in order to piss someone off is not funny, as their annoying cartoons show, nor it is a great achievement unless you are 13 years old, as you probably are.