You're comparing apples to oranges. The act of borrowing (from the library or a friend) and the act of acquiring (legitimate purchase or theft) are completely different. After all is said and done, there is still just one copy of the book, and the book, along with any intrinsic value, remains with the book. The only way you can equate your example with the current practice of stealing digital content, is if everyone who read the book, copied it. In all seriousness, how often do you think this happens?
That is true, but we still want to hear our band's new songs
The ability to hear your band's new songs is trivial considering the overall ramifications - your favorite bands are as much a part of the problem as the RIAA itself. The whole system is a morass of mutually-dependent dysfunction.
I'm not going to stop listening to ALL my favorite bands to get this done. Asking the world to do that is pretty ridiculous.
I'm not suggesting that anyone stop listening to their favorite bands, but I am suggesting that they stop buying (and stealing) any future releases until the RIAA adopts a more consumer-friendly way of doing business. What's rediculous is the notion that people can't muster enough self-discipline to do this for the short period of time it might take to manifest some real change. Gotta have that crack, I guess.
Re:Cost of media vs. "cost" of piracy
on
CD Copy Stopper
·
· Score: 2
It's precisely this kind of thinking that will continue to escalate this war between content thieves, and its rightful owners. Whether or not there are any real costs is completely beside the point. The point is that the RIAA (or its companies) produce something of value. It obviously has value, because so many people are willing fork over their money, and a good number of people are willing to steal it. What I've failed to understand throughout this whole ordeal, is the reasoning that affords people a special right to another's property without due compensation.
Funny thing about this - many people who steal music act as though they're taking the moral high ground, but they're kidding themselves. This is especially true since there's a perfectly viable solution, and it's the same solution that applies to every other sector of the market: don't buy the product. Perish the thought that people might actually have to exercise some sacrifice and self-discipline, but compared to the alternatives (increasingly restricted freedom), this is trivial.
The GTA3 story is about a guy who escapes from prison, and decides that he'd rather work his way up the ladder of organized crime, than pursue something more wholesome. In a larger sense, there is a moral lesson here. Yes, you get rewarded for knocking people off, delivering drugs, money, and such. But I can't think that anyone would walk away from this game thinking that this lifestyle is in any way rewarding or worthy of pursuit. I'd almost posit that as more of the seamy underbelly of this kind of lifestyle is exposed, the reality of it all becomes more apparent. But just as interesting is how someone gets to this point in the first place. Make stupid choices, this is what your life might be like.
I don't think it was Rockstar's intent to deliver a lesson in morality, but I think the potential exists to learn something positive - but going at it from a different angle.
There are some things that could have made it a bit more realistic - any involvement with prostitutes, for example, should have yielded random results from a slight increase in health, to a significantly negative influence, and weighted toward having an overall negative impact.
I see no difference between the two. Incest is incest, whether its depicted in the Bible (and it is), or in a movie. The same applies to the killing of both individuals and entire populations.
I suppose that an illustrated version of the Bible, or any movie that depicts it in all of its glory, then would have some very serious problems, huh?
This issue could have been put to rest a long time ago, but lately, I've been thinking that somehow, both sides enjoy this sordid, mutually dysfunctional association. On one hand, you have the RIAA, which repeatedly cries fowl in response to consumers who steal their content. They seek increasingly repressive laws that govern how, how often, and at what cost, we can listen to or watch our chosen entertainment. On the other hand, we have the consumers who repeatedly justify their acts of theft, citing unreasonable practices by the RIAA with respect to quality, price, and control. Yet, the consumers continue to unload huge piles of money into the pockets of the very corporations they criticize.
When are consumers going to realize that the only real control they can exercise over the RIAA will come through heir ability to shove their wallet back into their pocket the next time they're thinking about forking over their hard-earned money to buy a CD, DVD, or video? Stealing does nothing to solve the problem - it only makes things worse. As long people continue to engage in copyright infringement (theft of content), the RIAA can justify its actions (whether these actions are reasonable is another question altogether). Consumers can speak much more loudly and much more clearly if they ditch this crack habit, tell the RIAA to keep their content, and either save their money, or spend it on something with a greater ROI.
If the Bible was made into a video game, it would be a really interesting one. All of the stuff that makes up life is there - love, honor, sacrifice, as well as betrayal, dishonesty, violence....and it would make sense to have all of those things portrayed - in context
You seem to take a more moderate approach to the issue, but I ask you this:
Why, when speaking of the Bible, are violence, depravity, etc., trivialized by asserting that they pose no harm when viewed in context, but this is somehow not a reasonable standard when assessing other sources of the same kinds of behavior? Doesn't all of the violence and other anti-social behavior in GTA3 exist within some kind of context?
If all there had ever been were her jacked-up laissez-faire free-market bulldogs, solely in pursuit of a profit and freely pursuing their 'rights' to wealth and property, most of us would be dirt poor peasants, licking the feet of dirty fucking despots and warlords. No thank you.
To clarify, they have a right to pursue wealth and property, but the right to wealth and property does not materialize until it has been acquired through legitimate means - that being hard work, innovation, and self-discipline.
I suppose the growing system here in the U.S., where others are free to pursue their right to your property is better. It's called entitlement. It's exactly this kind of twisted thinking (among other things) that objectivism seeks to address.
Q: Which of these scenarios results in higher bandwidth costs?
A. A mandated link to the home page, where a user then has to mill about the site, trying to find the page they're looking for B. A (deep) link to the exact page containing the information of interest
This makes me wonder if something else is going on here. Is it possible that sites with policies against deep linking experience more overall traffic?
Policies against deep linking (though I'm sure there are exceptions), constitute poor implemention of a web site. In other words, if I can't link to any of the pages individually - or visit the site through such links - it's probably not worth my time in the first place. The link, after all, is one of the primary elements that distinguishes the web from other types of media.
I love all the religious fanatics who want to ban and censor any material which in their eyes promotes violence.
And yet they seem to be completely oblivious to all of the violence in the very book they so cherish - the Bible. Hmmmm...I wonder what they'd be saying if it were made into a video game...
If you choose to use force, you are going to attract the police. The more force, the more cops. Pretty soon, you're going down.
That's the key. While all games aren't nearly as encompassing, I'm focusing on GTA3 here because that's what THEY seem to be focusing on.
I play GTA3 (and has become one of my all-time favorites) not because of the content (and certainly not because I have the option to "do" prostitutes), but because the technology and immersiveness are awesome. The violence and other aspects that depict an anti-social orientation are but merely part of a story. If anything, they demonstrate how scummed out (and snuffed out) one's life can get when they make stupid choices.
Also what's with MS giving its software away for Free to a different government every week?
Think "PR". I suspect that this is nothing more than a loss leader - M$ will make all their money back and more when they start demanding outrageous licensing and support fees down the road.
Qwest has a long way to go before I'd consider it a "good" alternative. I'm aware of people who cannot use Qwest DSL because of line incompatiblity problems, stated incompatibilities with certain (well-known) ISPs, etc. Last I heard, Qwest has done little or nothing to resolve these issues. And when you consider the fine recently imposed for deceptive/fraudulent business practices, its current debt load, and what it paid its departing CEO for getting it where it is, you have a company that needs a serious overhaul.
"a city of the future" (hype) "miniscule expense" (no evidence) "$100 million savings" (no evidence) "more weapons for fighting crime" (hype)
This is a political sales pitch, pure and simple, and even worse, it involves an end-run around a process that was designed to protect the public's interest.
While I agree that cities may have a problem with their current technology, solving it by digging a huge pit, and then slowly burying yourself as a company like M$ begins to extort larger and larger sums of money (in the form of licensing/support agreements, of course), isn't the way to go.
Excellent to hear this...I haven't bought any music CDs, DVD's, or video tapes for about the past three years. I like music and movies (and I've paid for everything I have), but it's not the crack addiction for me that is for so many others. As long as DRM is part of the picture, the amount of entertainment that I purchase will be very, VERY limited.
I've always thought that, with a few exceptions, all this heavyweight 'content' represents a complete mismatch between the medium and user intent. The reason I like the web is because it can facilitate fast access to information. But it's not good if you have to wade through a layer of graphic bloat. In some ways, Flash (used inappropriately, as if often is) is to the Web as Micro$oft is to software.
Go ahead, "designers" - load up your pages with a bunch of useless visual crap. See how often I visit the site.
Re:ZDNet: MS Leads Anti-Open Source Lobby
on
Linuxworld Fun
·
· Score: 2
Consider this quote: "When governments base their choice on a preference that takes merit out of the situation, that's a concern to us," said Mike Wendy, public relations and policy counsel for CompTIA. "More options are always better."
What a load of worm-infested road apples. If more options are better, why isn't M$ doing what's necessary make more options available? Put up or shut up - publish the MS document specs (ALL of them).
It's clear that what he meant to say was "More options are always better...as long as they're in our favor."
How would this be any better than the monolithic bloat we now know as M$ office? I don't think there's anything wrong with having 12 different office packages to choose from - what sucks is when they each have their own format, and can't share information easily with other packages. What would be quite awesome is if these applications became mere interfaces to the data itself. This way, it wouldn't matter which app you used- any document you create would be compatible with any of the apps that handle that kind of document.
That the comparison do Pixar-style in real time might be inaccurate...especially when considering the 1.2 million computer hours. How does the equation change when you consider the resolution used for each animated frame (of Toy Story), and resolutions that are common in the gaming arena?
While I might agree that actors get paid more than I think they're worth, I would not classify their role as something that is "horribly stupid." Through their roles (and how well they execute them), they can lend a great deal of believability to the story being told. The fact that they're human actors being observed by other humans, allows the observer to identify with the actors in a way that I don't think is possible with CGI. CGI-based actors may work for some certain genres, but I just can't see it replacing the human element carte blanche.
Slashdot Mirror
You're comparing apples to oranges. The act of borrowing (from the library or a friend) and the act of acquiring (legitimate purchase or theft) are completely different. After all is said and done, there is still just one copy of the book, and the book, along with any intrinsic value, remains with the book. The only way you can equate your example with the current practice of stealing digital content, is if everyone who read the book, copied it. In all seriousness, how often do you think this happens?
That is true, but we still want to hear our band's new songs
The ability to hear your band's new songs is trivial considering the overall ramifications - your favorite bands are as much a part of the problem as the RIAA itself. The whole system is a morass of mutually-dependent dysfunction.
I'm not going to stop listening to ALL my favorite bands to get this done. Asking the world to do that is pretty ridiculous.
I'm not suggesting that anyone stop listening to their favorite bands, but I am suggesting that they stop buying (and stealing) any future releases until the RIAA adopts a more consumer-friendly way of doing business. What's rediculous is the notion that people can't muster enough self-discipline to do this for the short period of time it might take to manifest some real change. Gotta have that crack, I guess.
It's precisely this kind of thinking that will continue to escalate this war between content thieves, and its rightful owners. Whether or not there are any real costs is completely beside the point. The point is that the RIAA (or its companies) produce something of value. It obviously has value, because so many people are willing fork over their money, and a good number of people are willing to steal it. What I've failed to understand throughout this whole ordeal, is the reasoning that affords people a special right to another's property without due compensation.
Funny thing about this - many people who steal music act as though they're taking the moral high ground, but they're kidding themselves. This is especially true since there's a perfectly viable solution, and it's the same solution that applies to every other sector of the market: don't buy the product. Perish the thought that people might actually have to exercise some sacrifice and self-discipline, but compared to the alternatives (increasingly restricted freedom), this is trivial.
The GTA3 story is about a guy who escapes from prison, and decides that he'd rather work his way up the ladder of organized crime, than pursue something more wholesome. In a larger sense, there is a moral lesson here. Yes, you get rewarded for knocking people off, delivering drugs, money, and such. But I can't think that anyone would walk away from this game thinking that this lifestyle is in any way rewarding or worthy of pursuit. I'd almost posit that as more of the seamy underbelly of this kind of lifestyle is exposed, the reality of it all becomes more apparent. But just as interesting is how someone gets to this point in the first place. Make stupid choices, this is what your life might be like.
I don't think it was Rockstar's intent to deliver a lesson in morality, but I think the potential exists to learn something positive - but going at it from a different angle.
There are some things that could have made it a bit more realistic - any involvement with prostitutes, for example, should have yielded random results from a slight increase in health, to a significantly negative influence, and weighted toward having an overall negative impact.
I see no difference between the two. Incest is incest, whether its depicted in the Bible (and it is), or in a movie. The same applies to the killing of both individuals and entire populations.
I suppose that an illustrated version of the Bible, or any movie that depicts it in all of its glory, then would have some very serious problems, huh?
This issue could have been put to rest a long time ago, but lately, I've been thinking that somehow, both sides enjoy this sordid, mutually dysfunctional association. On one hand, you have the RIAA, which repeatedly cries fowl in response to consumers who steal their content. They seek increasingly repressive laws that govern how, how often, and at what cost, we can listen to or watch our chosen entertainment. On the other hand, we have the consumers who repeatedly justify their acts of theft, citing unreasonable practices by the RIAA with respect to quality, price, and control. Yet, the consumers continue to unload huge piles of money into the pockets of the very corporations they criticize.
When are consumers going to realize that the only real control they can exercise over the RIAA will come through heir ability to shove their wallet back into their pocket the next time they're thinking about forking over their hard-earned money to buy a CD, DVD, or video? Stealing does nothing to solve the problem - it only makes things worse. As long people continue to engage in copyright infringement (theft of content), the RIAA can justify its actions (whether these actions are reasonable is another question altogether). Consumers can speak much more loudly and much more clearly if they ditch this crack habit, tell the RIAA to keep their content, and either save their money, or spend it on something with a greater ROI.
If the Bible was made into a video game, it would be a really interesting one. All of the stuff that makes up life is there - love, honor, sacrifice, as well as betrayal, dishonesty, violence....and it would make sense to have all of those things portrayed - in context
You seem to take a more moderate approach to the issue, but I ask you this:
Why, when speaking of the Bible, are violence, depravity, etc., trivialized by asserting that they pose no harm when viewed in context, but this is somehow not a reasonable standard when assessing other sources of the same kinds of behavior? Doesn't all of the violence and other anti-social behavior in GTA3 exist within some kind of context?
If all there had ever been were her jacked-up laissez-faire free-market bulldogs, solely in pursuit of a profit and freely pursuing their 'rights' to wealth and property, most of us would be dirt poor peasants, licking the feet of dirty fucking despots and warlords. No thank you.
To clarify, they have a right to pursue wealth and property, but the right to wealth and property does not materialize until it has been acquired through legitimate means - that being hard work, innovation, and self-discipline.
I suppose the growing system here in the U.S., where others are free to pursue their right to your property is better. It's called entitlement. It's exactly this kind of twisted thinking (among other things) that objectivism seeks to address.
Q: Which of these scenarios results in higher bandwidth costs?
A. A mandated link to the home page, where a user then has to mill about the site, trying to find the page they're looking for
B. A (deep) link to the exact page containing the information of interest
This makes me wonder if something else is going on here. Is it possible that sites with policies against deep linking experience more overall traffic?
Policies against deep linking (though I'm sure there are exceptions), constitute poor implemention of a web site. In other words, if I can't link to any of the pages individually - or visit the site through such links - it's probably not worth my time in the first place. The link, after all, is one of the primary elements that distinguishes the web from other types of media.
I love all the religious fanatics who want to ban and censor any material which in their eyes promotes violence.
And yet they seem to be completely oblivious to all of the violence in the very book they so cherish - the Bible. Hmmmm...I wonder what they'd be saying if it were made into a video game...
If you choose to use force, you are going to attract the police. The more force, the more cops. Pretty soon, you're going down.
That's the key. While all games aren't nearly as encompassing, I'm focusing on GTA3 here because that's what THEY seem to be focusing on.
I play GTA3 (and has become one of my all-time favorites) not because of the content (and certainly not because I have the option to "do" prostitutes), but because the technology and immersiveness are awesome. The violence and other aspects that depict an anti-social orientation are but merely part of a story. If anything, they demonstrate how scummed out (and snuffed out) one's life can get when they make stupid choices.
Huh? Does the word "Columbine" ring a bell?
Also what's with MS giving its software away for Free to a different government every week?
Think "PR". I suspect that this is nothing more than a loss leader - M$ will make all their money back and more when they start demanding outrageous licensing and support fees down the road.
Qwest has a long way to go before I'd consider it a "good" alternative. I'm aware of people who cannot use Qwest DSL because of line incompatiblity problems, stated incompatibilities with certain (well-known) ISPs, etc. Last I heard, Qwest has done little or nothing to resolve these issues. And when you consider the fine recently imposed for deceptive /fraudulent business practices, its current debt load, and what it paid its departing CEO for getting it where it is, you have a company that needs a serious overhaul.
Consider the rhetoric here:
"a city of the future" (hype)
"miniscule expense" (no evidence)
"$100 million savings" (no evidence)
"more weapons for fighting crime" (hype)
This is a political sales pitch, pure and simple, and even worse, it involves an end-run around a process that was designed to protect the public's interest.
While I agree that cities may have a problem with their current technology, solving it by digging a huge pit, and then slowly burying yourself as a company like M$ begins to extort larger and larger sums of money (in the form of licensing/support agreements, of course), isn't the way to go.
Excellent to hear this...I haven't bought any music CDs, DVD's, or video tapes for about the past three years. I like music and movies (and I've paid for everything I have), but it's not the crack addiction for me that is for so many others. As long as DRM is part of the picture, the amount of entertainment that I purchase will be very, VERY limited.
Wow...I had no idea that the resolution was so low.
I'd like to thank everyone for the awesome responses.
I've always thought that, with a few exceptions, all this heavyweight 'content' represents a complete mismatch between the medium and user intent. The reason I like the web is because it can facilitate fast access to information. But it's not good if you have to wade through a layer of graphic bloat. In some ways, Flash (used inappropriately, as if often is) is to the Web as Micro$oft is to software.
Go ahead, "designers" - load up your pages with a bunch of useless visual crap. See how often I visit the site.
Consider this quote:
"When governments base their choice on a preference that takes merit out of the situation, that's a concern to us," said Mike Wendy, public relations and policy counsel for CompTIA. "More options are always better."
What a load of worm-infested road apples. If more options are better, why isn't M$ doing what's necessary make more options available? Put up or shut up - publish the MS document specs (ALL of them).
It's clear that what he meant to say was "More options are always better...as long as they're in our favor."
Just switch the picture to a ferocious looking canine, and change the name to Dogzilla. : )
How would this be any better than the monolithic bloat we now know as M$ office? I don't think there's anything wrong with having 12 different office packages to choose from - what sucks is when they each have their own format, and can't share information easily with other packages. What would be quite awesome is if these applications became mere interfaces to the data itself. This way, it wouldn't matter which app you used- any document you create would be compatible with any of the apps that handle that kind of document.
That the comparison do Pixar-style in real time might be inaccurate...especially when considering the 1.2 million computer hours. How does the equation change when you consider the resolution used for each animated frame (of Toy Story), and resolutions that are common in the gaming arena?
While I might agree that actors get paid more than I think they're worth, I would not classify their role as something that is "horribly stupid." Through their roles (and how well they execute them), they can lend a great deal of believability to the story being told. The fact that they're human actors being observed by other humans, allows the observer to identify with the actors in a way that I don't think is possible with CGI. CGI-based actors may work for some certain genres, but I just can't see it replacing the human element carte blanche.
To play devil's advocate, can you see a "reference" actor being paid anywhere near what the top names are demanding nowadays?
What about hiring ILM who then would consult with Gucci?