i guess my points are in conflict. my bad.
i only brought up supply and demand because some people equate copyright infringement with theft. if it is theft, then we have to use supply and demand to judge the value. you said value is what the market will pay, then why hasn't market adjusted to piracy by lowering prices? copyright skews the entire equation.
i just don't think that they should have their cake, which the public grants them limited sole ownership, and eat it too, without sharing with the people that let them have it in the first place. they can either be entitled to low profit margins (i said the value drops to near-zero, not zero) or short copyright protection, but not both.
the idea that limited sole ownership is granted by the public and eventually given back freely to the public could be seen as entirely communist. copyright is communism. freeways and fire departments are socialism. market segments that say media should be free is capitalism. the whole world is fucked i guess.
You flunk Economics 101. The value of the product is what the market will pay for it. You're talking about the cost to produce it, specifically the marginal cost to sell one extra album. That is indeed near zero, but that doesn't make the production cost zero - only the marginal cost, and that's got only a very small amount to do with the retail price.
after production costs are recouped without any hollywood accounting, of course, then it does come down to production. also, it would be unfair to say copyright doesn't skew what the market will pay.
They don't believe that this is true. Why would they argue in favor of this? It's not in their interests to do so. Do unions come forward and say 'wow, our pensions just cost way too much. We'll voluntarily give them up.' Does management come forward and say 'you know what, we should give people more paid vacation.'
of course they wouldn't be for it. who wouldn't turn down a government backed protection racket? it is one thing to have a limited time to try and make a profit, but it is something completely different to have a near lifelong monopoly. it'd be more like the management saying, "yeah, you get paid vacation, but not until you've worked here 30 years, and you still have to wait another 10 years into retirement to get it. if you're lucky, you may even be able to bequeath it to your grandchildren." besides, copyright is an agreement between the public-at-large and content creators, and it definitely needs an overhaul. a public discourse might be nice, if there would ever be a fair way to have one. with all the media being owned by content creators fud-ing it up about their need to have such long copyright and how it is in our best interests to keep it that way, it is highly unlikely to happen.
if they really wanted to protect their ip, the riaa & mpaa can come forward and say the following:
1. copyright is way too long and currently goes against its original intents of going to the public domain in a timely fashion. 5-20 years is more than sufficient. it was never meant to create dynasties or let someone milk one work for their entire life.
2. basic supply and demand has fucked us over. with a nearly infinite supply, the value of the product reaches near zero. if i can't use physical terms on the ip, then copyright infringement cannot ever be called theft.
if they did that and lobbied their well-paid congress critters to reform copyright as to benefit both sides, which was the original intent, i'd never pirate anything again.
they never will. somehow, its okay to pervert the system for their own ends, but when anyone else does, they are thieves and pirates.
it will surely be publicly funded by tax payer dollars only to let some private company reap all the profits. which is just plain retarded in any instance, now or then.
except that has been true since day one, but they waited this long to implement it? sure, there was no mac app store, but they could have surely sold you a download on their website. surely something else is going on.
personally, i think to be covered by copyright, said content should have to be made available. if you're not going to sell it, then i couldn't possibly be taking away anyone's money by getting it free from the internet. nothing digital should EVER go out of print, or worse, some back-in-the-vault marketing bullshit. you know, making the artificially scarce even more falsely scarce.
Gotta love spending money on the only crime [can't think of another] that is having video/photo of a crime. I do not support cp, but i find that to be ridiculous. I can have thousands of hours of beheading videos, which, in theory, creates just as much demand for more of them, like is argued regarding cp. I imagine that getting your head sawed off is worse than your uncle touching your wiener, but apparently, that is not the case. Either all criminal/police/etc photo/video should be illegal or none of it. No exceptions. Maybe I am missing something?
i believe consoles have it ass-backwards. i think their licensed development model, in its entirety, is retarded. i say we let consumers pay full price for the hardware and not have developers subsidize them. then, we just let anyone develop for them. it would seem that the established publishing houses would not like that very much. if we can blur the lines between pc and consoles going one way, why not the other way, too? would you prefer os vendors to start charging development fees? goose, gander, etc.
there isn't any value to intellectual property at all.
well, almost. with a near infinite supply of any item, the value has to approach near zero at some point. i'm not sure when, but i'd say more than a year but way, way, way less than 90 years post death. funny, how certain people want to compare copyright infringement with physical theft, but when you use physical terms regarding supply and demand, it's suddenly different.
If content producers know that anything they produce is "up for grabs", what incentive do they have to keep producing?
What if they realize that the value their content WAS worth is no longer anywhere near the same value?
If it pays more than McDonald's , their incentive is "It's not McDonald's" If producing content is no longer profitable, what can you do? Maybe the system can die and be reborn. It'd probably be better in the long run.
Framing those who wish to produce intellectual property and then charge for it as "slavers" is dishonest and counterproductive.
So is preventing stuff created in my lifetime to never become public domain in my lifetime. I do agree there should be limited copyright, but what we have now is grossly obscene. 10-20 years max plus a few stipulations: 1. must be made available: in the digital world, nothing should go out of print, ever. it's bad enough with the current bullshit false scarcity, but to double it up? gimme a break. 2. mandatory backup program: if you can use drm to stop copying and violate fair use rights, man up and provide a backup program. i mail you a broken disc, you mail me a new one. capiche? 3. no more retarded regioning: the internet is a global network and should be treated as such. if you can't compete on that level, maybe gtfo?
would mean they actively support it, which means they are legally responsible for any damages.
really? sounds like the same thing that people said about hackintoshes. you don't have to support it if you say you won't from the get-go unless there are some nefarious laws requiring every company to directly support every product they've ever made... for all eternity? does this apply to all products? are people who leave their homes unlocked now actively supporting burglary? where does it end?
off-topic side note: if phone makers can make exclusivity deals with carriers, can automobile makers do the same with gas stations (using a propietary nozzle or something) or a pc maker with an isp? just curious, is all.
go further: is there a clear definition of a "mobile device"? mobile meaning not stationary, so anything that can be used while moving it around (i.e. battery powered) and device can also be pretty generalized. i'd call a laptop a mobile [computing] device, and i've used an emulator on them before 2000, when nintendo's patent was filed.
cartel's do make campaign contributions to those that want to keep them illegal. what do you think stopped the proposition in california? i'd wager a majority might not be for full legalization, but they'd like the extra money saved by decriminalizing them.
Only a few companies make LCDs... Samsung (again), Sharp, Toshiba, and some relatively unknown companies in China make up the bulk of them.
i'd go even further and say that there are only a few chinese companies that sell them to samsung, sharp and toshiba. i know chimei sold to both samsung and dell, amongst others. now these companies are starting to skip the middle man and sell complete products themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
that or the dvd was letterboxed to 4:3 from the get-go.
i guess my points are in conflict. my bad.
i only brought up supply and demand because some people equate copyright infringement with theft. if it is theft, then we have to use supply and demand to judge the value. you said value is what the market will pay, then why hasn't market adjusted to piracy by lowering prices? copyright skews the entire equation.
i just don't think that they should have their cake, which the public grants them limited sole ownership, and eat it too, without sharing with the people that let them have it in the first place. they can either be entitled to low profit margins (i said the value drops to near-zero, not zero) or short copyright protection, but not both.
the idea that limited sole ownership is granted by the public and eventually given back freely to the public could be seen as entirely communist. copyright is communism. freeways and fire departments are socialism. market segments that say media should be free is capitalism. the whole world is fucked i guess.
You flunk Economics 101. The value of the product is what the market will pay for it. You're talking about the cost to produce it, specifically the marginal cost to sell one extra album. That is indeed near zero, but that doesn't make the production cost zero - only the marginal cost, and that's got only a very small amount to do with the retail price.
after production costs are recouped without any hollywood accounting, of course, then it does come down to production. also, it would be unfair to say copyright doesn't skew what the market will pay.
They don't believe that this is true. Why would they argue in favor of this? It's not in their interests to do so. Do unions come forward and say 'wow, our pensions just cost way too much. We'll voluntarily give them up.' Does management come forward and say 'you know what, we should give people more paid vacation.'
of course they wouldn't be for it. who wouldn't turn down a government backed protection racket? it is one thing to have a limited time to try and make a profit, but it is something completely different to have a near lifelong monopoly. it'd be more like the management saying, "yeah, you get paid vacation, but not until you've worked here 30 years, and you still have to wait another 10 years into retirement to get it. if you're lucky, you may even be able to bequeath it to your grandchildren." besides, copyright is an agreement between the public-at-large and content creators, and it definitely needs an overhaul. a public discourse might be nice, if there would ever be a fair way to have one. with all the media being owned by content creators fud-ing it up about their need to have such long copyright and how it is in our best interests to keep it that way, it is highly unlikely to happen.
in the future, yes you will, if they have their way. not only that, but you'll be paying every single time you view any single part of it.
if they really wanted to protect their ip, the riaa & mpaa can come forward and say the following:
1. copyright is way too long and currently goes against its original intents of going to the public domain in a timely fashion. 5-20 years is more than sufficient. it was never meant to create dynasties or let someone milk one work for their entire life.
2. basic supply and demand has fucked us over. with a nearly infinite supply, the value of the product reaches near zero. if i can't use physical terms on the ip, then copyright infringement cannot ever be called theft.
if they did that and lobbied their well-paid congress critters to reform copyright as to benefit both sides, which was the original intent, i'd never pirate anything again. they never will. somehow, its okay to pervert the system for their own ends, but when anyone else does, they are thieves and pirates.
it will a half finished game where you have to buy the rest?
it will surely be publicly funded by tax payer dollars only to let some private company reap all the profits. which is just plain retarded in any instance, now or then.
except that has been true since day one, but they waited this long to implement it? sure, there was no mac app store, but they could have surely sold you a download on their website. surely something else is going on.
personally, i think to be covered by copyright, said content should have to be made available. if you're not going to sell it, then i couldn't possibly be taking away anyone's money by getting it free from the internet. nothing digital should EVER go out of print, or worse, some back-in-the-vault marketing bullshit. you know, making the artificially scarce even more falsely scarce.
Gotta love spending money on the only crime [can't think of another] that is having video/photo of a crime. I do not support cp, but i find that to be ridiculous. I can have thousands of hours of beheading videos, which, in theory, creates just as much demand for more of them, like is argued regarding cp. I imagine that getting your head sawed off is worse than your uncle touching your wiener, but apparently, that is not the case. Either all criminal/police/etc photo/video should be illegal or none of it. No exceptions. Maybe I am missing something?
coining a word is creating a word...
somehow, the company's wants are a better reason? nice, real nice.
srry. "destroy the earth" = world-ender. i'd rather have mass panic/hysteria and all that comes with it, then, "hey? what's that in the sky?"...SPLAT
side note: how can you possibly quantify how much loss of life is caused simply by telling the truth?
i believe consoles have it ass-backwards. i think their licensed development model, in its entirety, is retarded. i say we let consumers pay full price for the hardware and not have developers subsidize them. then, we just let anyone develop for them. it would seem that the established publishing houses would not like that very much. if we can blur the lines between pc and consoles going one way, why not the other way, too? would you prefer os vendors to start charging development fees? goose, gander, etc.
so if an asteroid was heading to destroy the earth, you wouldn't want everyone to know?
That and official game development by small, home-based teams. Xbox 360 has it; PS3 and Wii don't.
which is cool, but only if you don't have to pay to develop for it.
if that's the case, they shouldn't be allowed to get more subscribers unless the network can handle it. there should be a law, seriously.
there isn't any value to intellectual property at all.
well, almost. with a near infinite supply of any item, the value has to approach near zero at some point. i'm not sure when, but i'd say more than a year but way, way, way less than 90 years post death. funny, how certain people want to compare copyright infringement with physical theft, but when you use physical terms regarding supply and demand, it's suddenly different.
If content producers know that anything they produce is "up for grabs", what incentive do they have to keep producing?
What if they realize that the value their content WAS worth is no longer anywhere near the same value? If it pays more than McDonald's , their incentive is "It's not McDonald's" If producing content is no longer profitable, what can you do? Maybe the system can die and be reborn. It'd probably be better in the long run.
Framing those who wish to produce intellectual property and then charge for it as "slavers" is dishonest and counterproductive.
So is preventing stuff created in my lifetime to never become public domain in my lifetime. I do agree there should be limited copyright, but what we have now is grossly obscene. 10-20 years max plus a few stipulations: 1. must be made available: in the digital world, nothing should go out of print, ever. it's bad enough with the current bullshit false scarcity, but to double it up? gimme a break. 2. mandatory backup program: if you can use drm to stop copying and violate fair use rights, man up and provide a backup program. i mail you a broken disc, you mail me a new one. capiche? 3. no more retarded regioning: the internet is a global network and should be treated as such. if you can't compete on that level, maybe gtfo?
so it would be Nazi Gold Tycoon or somesuch, not a fps
it is because of out-dated licensing systems. one net, one license or gtfo.
would mean they actively support it, which means they are legally responsible for any damages.
really? sounds like the same thing that people said about hackintoshes. you don't have to support it if you say you won't from the get-go unless there are some nefarious laws requiring every company to directly support every product they've ever made... for all eternity? does this apply to all products? are people who leave their homes unlocked now actively supporting burglary? where does it end?
off-topic side note: if phone makers can make exclusivity deals with carriers, can automobile makers do the same with gas stations (using a propietary nozzle or something) or a pc maker with an isp? just curious, is all.
Old Media is dead.
go further: is there a clear definition of a "mobile device"? mobile meaning not stationary, so anything that can be used while moving it around (i.e. battery powered) and device can also be pretty generalized. i'd call a laptop a mobile [computing] device, and i've used an emulator on them before 2000, when nintendo's patent was filed.
cartel's do make campaign contributions to those that want to keep them illegal. what do you think stopped the proposition in california? i'd wager a majority might not be for full legalization, but they'd like the extra money saved by decriminalizing them.
Only a few companies make LCDs... Samsung (again), Sharp, Toshiba, and some relatively unknown companies in China make up the bulk of them.
i'd go even further and say that there are only a few chinese companies that sell them to samsung, sharp and toshiba. i know chimei sold to both samsung and dell, amongst others. now these companies are starting to skip the middle man and sell complete products themselves.