The problem is that in this dog eat dog world, if you save someone else money you have nothing to show for it.
I agree that it's important to recognize the cost one imposes on another, but then again it's no fun being broke cuz the other guy didn't extend you the same courtesy.
People generally prefer free stuff to cheap stuff. It's part of human nature to look for bargains. It is for this reason that piracy will prevail, because people don't generally give a rat's ass about how much or how little it cost to produce.
Those who get away with piracy enjoy quite a bit of what in economics is called a "consumer surplus" in which one pays less for a good than what it is worth to the buyer.
Now you're right, the music suppliers are a bunch of lowlife rent seekers, however that ignores the fact that many "consumers" are simply exploiting piracy to get bargains on stuff that some of them would have been willing to pay for anyway.
Alas, though pirates be thievin rascals, ne'er have they sunk a ship with a loose aimed sue-cannon like the sleaziest sleaze of the seven seas that be the RIAA and it's scurvy lawyer dogs.
I say let the RIAA walk the plank first.
I do like your idea of embedding advertisements in the files though.
If they have a higher standard of proof than the RIAA, then I'm fine with them terminating pirates.
As far as I'm concerned, wankers who pirate stuff just to avoid paying for it are just as much scum as the RIAA, in that they're trying to freeload off the efforts of others.
Generally, the law should be obeyed. The fact that these pirates are getting away with it doesn't make it right, or make the law flawed.
If civil rights were at stake I might advocate civil disobedience. However, that is not the case here, and thus the pirates don't have a moral leg to stand on.
Economically, they are also hurting the pockets of the companies that make the stuff, either by pirating instead of buying, or letting someone else freeload off of them.
So, pirates get zero sympathy from me, especially if they get caught red handed with a smoking gun in their hand.
As long as no innocent bystanders suffer, I say let the pirates go to hell. The only thing they're doing is helping karma tit the middlemen for tatting the artists.
Having your privacy invaded is so profitable to the ne'er do wells that you can't pay them enough not to do it.
Letting the market sort things out neglects the fact that people who are powerful enough can, will, and even do lie, cheat, and steal.
Since everyone does it, there's really not much benefit to switching, since you likely gain little.
Case in point: CBS's subsidiary getting snookered into passing off private information through CBS only for it to be dumped into the hands of the RIAA.
And by the time your privacy is breached, it is too late for you to "shop elsewhere", because the damage has already been done.
Slashdot Mirror
At the moment the iranian civilians are hostages.
When people are hostages, you generally don't piss off their captors.
My point was that you cannot count on the mercy of strangers even if you're the epitome of saintly altruism.
you suck at xml
Spending extra dough to spare people misery doesn't pay off since they have no incentive to reimburse you for not infecting them.
In this world, the local PD probably used a emissions tester that was secretly tinkered with by the catalyc converter vendors.
Hmm...
Get fired for coming to work sick, or get fired for staying home sick.
Damn, just don't get sick!
Asking our boss to be understanding when it's clearly in HIS (and his company's) best interest to can and replace you? That's not capitalistic! ...
Sucks when Darwin says you lose when it ain't your fault, doesn't it?
The problem is that in this dog eat dog world, if you save someone else money you have nothing to show for it.
I agree that it's important to recognize the cost one imposes on another, but then again it's no fun being broke cuz the other guy didn't extend you the same courtesy.
Offensive selfishness breeds defensive selfishness.
It's also a valid (albeit unwise) exercise of authority.
Anyone who refuses to go home, or indeed willfully disobeys any of my orders, gets their ass handed a big fat pink slip just like anyone else.
Sorry, but any "solution" to the unfairness problem needs to deal with the people in power otherwise it will get vetoed down the line.
Tiananmen square is probably why we don't see massive protests in china today.
The government there proved it wasn't afraid to use lethal force to get its way.
Perhaps he saw that the terrorists have already won by getting our governments to take all our freedoms away.
Yes I said it.
The terrorists have won.
Of course it's a breach of contrast.
The terms are hardly black and white.
And they'd still win.
MS has cash to burn and can out-wait any lawsuit.
They're still trying to milk XP demand for all it's worth and more.
If MS hadn't made crap when it released vista, there wouldn't be such a fuss to upgrade to XP in the first place.
Hell, my college network does this and I'm pissed.
Unless something funky happens with Kimball's ruling during appeal, Novell has that card.
Interesting that people who willingly "kiss their karma goodbye" and make statements to that effect are the ones who wind up with the upmods?
What immediately sets off the bullshit alarm with these guys is that they call me even though I DO NOT HAVE A FRIGGIN CAR!!!
Last time I talked to them I told them
"stop calling me or I'm calling the FTC"
People generally prefer free stuff to cheap stuff. It's part of human nature to look for bargains. It is for this reason that piracy will prevail, because people don't generally give a rat's ass about how much or how little it cost to produce.
Those who get away with piracy enjoy quite a bit of what in economics is called a "consumer surplus" in which one pays less for a good than what it is worth to the buyer.
Now you're right, the music suppliers are a bunch of lowlife rent seekers, however that ignores the fact that many "consumers" are simply exploiting piracy to get bargains on stuff that some of them would have been willing to pay for anyway.
Alas, though pirates be thievin rascals, ne'er have they sunk a ship with a loose aimed sue-cannon like the sleaziest sleaze of the seven seas that be the RIAA and it's scurvy lawyer dogs.
I say let the RIAA walk the plank first.
I do like your idea of embedding advertisements in the files though.
I'm not sure blatantly sharing an ENTIRE work constitutes fair use.
Better than taking your beloved son with her.
Sometimes, I wish we would stop and think about what really matters.
Oddly, music doesn't rate high on my priority list.
Launch a solar panel and beam the energy down to earth.
If they have a higher standard of proof than the RIAA, then I'm fine with them terminating pirates.
As far as I'm concerned, wankers who pirate stuff just to avoid paying for it are just as much scum as the RIAA, in that they're trying to freeload off the efforts of others.
Generally, the law should be obeyed. The fact that these pirates are getting away with it doesn't make it right, or make the law flawed.
If civil rights were at stake I might advocate civil disobedience. However, that is not the case here, and thus the pirates don't have a moral leg to stand on.
Economically, they are also hurting the pockets of the companies that make the stuff, either by pirating instead of buying, or letting someone else freeload off of them.
So, pirates get zero sympathy from me, especially if they get caught red handed with a smoking gun in their hand.
As long as no innocent bystanders suffer, I say let the pirates go to hell. The only thing they're doing is helping karma tit the middlemen for tatting the artists.
Unfortunately, this is an evil bit problem.
There are greedy assholes that will exploit the situation no matter what the trade off point is.
Having your privacy invaded is so profitable to the ne'er do wells that you can't pay them enough not to do it.
Letting the market sort things out neglects the fact that people who are powerful enough can, will, and even do lie, cheat, and steal.
Since everyone does it, there's really not much benefit to switching, since you likely gain little.
Case in point: CBS's subsidiary getting snookered into passing off private information through CBS only for it to be dumped into the hands of the RIAA.
And by the time your privacy is breached, it is too late for you to "shop elsewhere", because the damage has already been done.
By "US" I meant people who matter. I.e., the rich, weathy, and politically connected.
Sadly, oddball "nobodies" are likely to matter to the people with all the cards.