The whole notion of claiming that someone might be entitled to "fair use" of a copy that is not legitimately owned, is absurd. My disdain for the RIAA aside, I see groups promoting ideas like this just as guilty of pursuing their own (extreme) self-interest.
The idea was mentioned (by another poster) for a Recording Artists Association of America. This seems like it might be a great idea - if the chances of it become yet another bloated, money-grabbing bureaucracy were minimal. Artists could then have full control over how they distribute their work, and how much they're paid for it. I have a feeling though, that even IF a major shift like this were to occur, there'd still be a faction of people who think they're entitled to enjoy an artist's work for free. Let's call it entertitlement - the newest form of welfare.
It's just one more opportunity for companies to monitor you, and sell this information to anyone interested in buying it. The concept isn't bad, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my autonomy/privacy for a small increase in convenience.
No, the artist doesn't decide how I experience the art. He (all-inclusive, not sexist) merely creates, you enjoy.
Wanna bet? If I produce a song, and I decide that I'm not going to do any live performances, it's pretty much my decision, isn't it. You have no asy in the matter.
"Entitled to be compensated"?!, for what? magnetic images!? is music so difficult to create and scarce that I must cherish each and every moment...and PAY for it?!
Why do you listen to music? Because you enjoy it, right? And because you enjoy it, it has a certain value to you, correct? What is it about music that makes you think that you're ENTITLED to it, merely because someone has expended the time and resources necessary to create it?
Anyone can "write" music, just like anyone can "write" poetry. Special are those, however, who can do it in such a way as to create something that has a sense of form and beauty to it, that invites an inner part of ourselves to "mingle" with it, experience it, and allow it to affect us. I find it odd that something can be so profound, yet deemed so worthless.
would pay for music, but only great music and even then only to hear it live. Otherwise I would cover the costs of production, but most definitely NOT the price of promotion (the RIAA's excuse for $15 cds)
And after you so generously cover the cost of production, what's the artist going to live on, their good looks?
I've seen a lot of media attention (at least in the local news) about security issues. One resport described the ability of knowledgeable netheads to access files on your machine while connected to the net. Knowing all of the security problems that have plagued MS products, I'd have a hard time believing that people would knowingly put their own personal machines in this kind of jeopardy simply because MS offers a free web server.
As much as I like Slashdot, and as much as I admire the blood, sweat, and tears that Rob and Hemos have put into the site, what is it about Slashdot that Andover.net found compelling enough acquire it? Was it the target audience, and the prospect of generating ad revenue? This may seem like a dumb question, but I find the business aspect of the deal interesting.
I agree...CD prices are way out of line. But what amazes me is that people keep right on buying them. Either that, or they feel like the high prices entitle them to steal the music instead.
I'm not one of those hypocrites who preach one thing and then do something else - the last time I bought a CD was about a year ago, and before that, purchases were few and far between. I have a grand total of 1 MP3, and this is from a group who openly released on the net. I realize that I'm probably in the extreme minority, but I believe that the market CAN work...all it takes is a little discipline.
I think musicians should be paid for performances, with less emphasis on CD sales. If things continue the way they are, this is what will happen.
This would seem to be the artist's decision, not yours. Whether it's a live performance, or one recorded on a CD, they still created it, and they're still entitled to be compensated if you add it to your collection.
The problem is that there are so many hands in the cookie jar, and all of them have their own vested interest in keeping (and increasing) their share as much as possible. Just how MUCH do we have to spend on education before we finally realize that we can pay incompetent teachers ANY amount and STILL end up with students who are functionally illiterate? Having attended a private religious high school, it always amazed me how they could accomplish so much more with so much less.
While CEOs do work for shareholders, at least THEY are accountable to someone. The government has proven, in many instances, that it is accountable to no one. What happens when a program is deemed unprofitable for a private sector company? They scrap the program. The government, on the other hand, often keeps right on throwing money at it. Since every new program creates a new special interest, it behooves every American citizen to see that these programs are kept to a MINIMUM.
As far as the local taxes... they also pay to build/repair roads the employees and shipping companies use.
Then what are gas taxes for? Recently, local gas stations stopped posting the amount of tax that made up the price per gallon of gas. This is worrisome, since raising this tax would be almost invisible to the average consumer - most people would assume that it's just a sporadic increase in the price of gas.
We're taxed to death already, and there's no end in sight. It's no secret that no matter HOW MUCH OF OUR HARD-EARNED MONEY we are forced to give the government, there will be no shortage of ways to waste it. Let's move in the OTHER direction for once. If local merchants are complaining about the local sales tax, how about repealing it, rather than adding a new one?
Well, I do know this...you can put all the money you want into a good stereo system, but at some point, the sheer volume of the sound causes the inner ear to generate its own harmonics, thereby making it sound WORSE.
Other than that, help me understand why everyone within a few hundred feet should have to listen to your car stereo, anyway.
Hmmm...I guess I know *how* people destroy their hearing, but I'm still not sure WHY they do it. As for me personally, I understand the allure of rock concerts, but I've chosen *not* to attend many of them for this very reason. I never saw the logic behind paying a bunch of rock bands (or ska or whatever) to damage my hearing for me.
You've just taken the wind out of the sails of everyone proposing that just because music can be digitally encoded, it is therefore "information," and should be free.
As far as traditional storage, there's analog audio tape, and this has to be handled with great care in order to maintain its quality. Variations in humidity and temperature, as well as accidental exposure to magnetic fields, etc. can have a significant impact on the quality of a tape.
Vinyl has its drawbacks as well - each play introduces wear and tear on the record surface, and over time, diminishes the quality of the recording. The maintenance is higher, and warpage, if severe enough, will destroy its usefulness completely.
I think the CD is the clear winner, at least for now.
By then I hope to have destroyed my hearing enough not to care, but there will always be a gnawing feeling in the back of my mind that I'm missing something.
I know it happens all the time, but why would anyone want to knowingly destroy their hearing?
Five state senators have recently proposed legislation that would REQUIRE the prominent display of the ten commandments in public schools. There's an article about it here. The opening sentence (a product of its author, I admit) is quite humorous in an of itself:
Five Republican state lawmakers Thursday proposed posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms across Colorado as a way to make schools safer.
The Columbine shooting, though inexcusable in my opinion, taught us that the social hell faced by many students can lead to tragic results. So how do we solve the problem? By giving students yet ANOTHER way to call into question individual differences. Problem solved. NOT!
If anything, this article points to a very corrupt practice I see in our government - the tendency to tack on amendments that have *nothing* to do with the original legislation. The *national* proposal to *allow* the ten commandments to be posted in schools and other government buildings was proposed as an *amendment* to laws being considered for gun control. What does religion have to do with (illusory) gun control?
These lawmakers need to find another job. Ideas are welcome.
I am happy to see that there are still people who aren't drowning in the "music should be free" frenzy. The truth is, that the creation of music is like any other endeavor: Because it requires time, energy, talent, and other resources, it's anything BUT free. The compensation afforded artists should cover not only the cost of production and distribution, but acknowledge the value that the music has to its listeners.
To echo your sentiment, if you like it and listen to it, pay for it. IMHO, the greatest thing about the MP3 movement has nothing to do with whether or not music is free. Instead, it's about a dramatic shift in who has control over an artist's material, and how much it will cost.
I agree with your implication that the mere presence procreation does not necessarily make it a natural "law," but I completely disagree with the notion that pleasure is a necessary component of procreation. Pleasure or not, humans have a natural TENDENCY to procreate. To suggest that a life-long commitment (that of child rearing) is only viable because of a few seconds of pleasure that MAY play a role during conception, is far too simplistic.
Before the industrial revolution, it was even NECESSARY - each family member assumed a role in the support of the entire family unit. In many situations, procreation was necessary for survival.
Today, there are many things that drive people to procreate - I suspect that an instinctual desire to nurture and raise offspring is one of the more salient motivating factors.
The author of this article neglected to reason that this is also one of Linux's strengths OVER WinNT. If MS releases something that sucks (like that would never happen), NT's "integration" prevents the user from using an alternative. In other words, they're stuck. With Linux, on the other hand, you can pick and choose components based on specific needs. Further, if a specific component isn't up to snuff, you can either find a better one, or write your own. Despite its high cost, this is NOT an option with NT.
While I personally don't think the free software model will work over the long term (which doesn't preclude the success of Linux), THIS guy is after one thing and one thing only: JOB SECURITY.
Some of us scream about the deterioration of "society." From the old perspective, yes, many of our tried and true institutions (ways of ordering the chaos around us) are crumbling. This is because they are no longer relevant to modern day life. They must be abandoned if real progress (wtf does that mean?) is to occur.
Yes, but some would argue that there are a few "conditions" that completely transcend this chaos, and our attempts to control it. Great societies have fallen because they fell into a state of neglect. Their citizens, having become greedy, lazy, and unable to maintain a sense of self-discipline, made them an easy target for takeover. There are some things we CANNOT abandon no matter how hard we try, because they come with the package - the one we know as humanity.
And YOU get to benefit from THEIR effort at no cost to you whatsoever. THIS is wrong.
I agree that software isn't a "consumable" resource, but everyone on the open source bandwagon conveniently (and consistently) leaves two factors out of the equation: a) the cost to develop, test, market, and support the software, and b) the VALUE provided by the software. Let's face it...if it didn't have any value, there'd be no desire to copy it.
Interesting. You just repeated exactly what you said before. What specifically do you have to say that will offer some substance to what is, in terms of how you've described it, nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion? EVERYONE has opinions.
To flesh this out a little more, it's more important than you think. If you start your professional career at a given wage, and each successive employer has access to your previous wage, what's the first thing that's likely to happen? The offers you receive won't be based on the VALUE of the work you'll be doing for them, it will be based on what THEY consider to be a "reasonable" increase over what you made at your previous employer. If your previous employer was one of those, "we don't pay very well, but the work is VERY interesting" types, you're going to have a VERY hard time making up for this. Also, what if you happen to be in a situation where you had to accept a position for LESS money than you made previously, and then moved on to another job, where you might be justified in asking for substantially more? Would a prospective employer be within reason to ask you WHY you moved to a job that payed less? This would seem to open the possibility for all kinds of meddlesome questions.
Your post is very pessimistic, and it fails to consider what many of the post have done: software vendors are banking on the presumption that consumers will be STUPID enough to purchase software with this kind dreck attached to it. Let's not forget - these companies are SELLING us something. This involves a condition whereby one party agrees to exchange THEIR money for what it is the software company is offering. This license seems to treat any revenue from these kinds of licenses as a foregone conclusion.
At the risk of stating the obvious, a company can't exist without sufficient revenue. If enough customers find this kind of agreement as hideous as it really is, they'll simply refuse to purchase the product. Revenue falls, company goes under, end of story. How many times do you think this will have to happen before software companies decide that this kind of license is tantamount to putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger?
Once a user signs an agreement, they're stuck...but no software company can MAKE you buy their product, and this is something that consumers would do well to remember. I'd just love to be able to send a letter to one or more of these companies:
To Whom it may concern:
We have been long-time consumers of your products in the past, and we are pleased with the results we have been able to achieve. I regret to inform you, however, that we are unable to continue a relationship with your company. Because we have found your new licensing requirements unacceptable, we will be replacing your software with an alternative that has far more reasonable terms governing its use.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole notion of claiming that someone might be entitled to "fair use" of a copy that is not legitimately owned, is absurd. My disdain for the RIAA aside, I see groups promoting ideas like this just as guilty of pursuing their own (extreme) self-interest.
The idea was mentioned (by another poster) for a Recording Artists Association of America. This seems like it might be a great idea - if the chances of it become yet another bloated, money-grabbing bureaucracy were minimal. Artists could then have full control over how they distribute their work, and how much they're paid for it. I have a feeling though, that even IF a major shift like this were to occur, there'd still be a faction of people who think they're entitled to enjoy an artist's work for free. Let's call it entertitlement - the newest form of welfare.
It's just one more opportunity for companies to monitor you, and sell this information to anyone interested in buying it. The concept isn't bad, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my autonomy/privacy for a small increase in convenience.
No, the artist doesn't decide how I experience the art. He (all-inclusive, not sexist) merely creates, you enjoy.
Wanna bet? If I produce a song, and I decide that I'm not going to do any live performances, it's pretty much my decision, isn't it. You have no asy in the matter.
"Entitled to be compensated"?!, for what? magnetic images!? is music so difficult to create and scarce that I must cherish each and every moment...and PAY for it?!
Why do you listen to music? Because you enjoy it, right? And because you enjoy it, it has a certain value to you, correct? What is it about music that makes you think that you're ENTITLED to it, merely because someone has expended the time and resources necessary to create it?
Anyone can "write" music, just like anyone can "write" poetry. Special are those, however, who can do it in such a way as to create something that has a sense of form and beauty to it, that invites an inner part of ourselves to "mingle" with it, experience it, and allow it to affect us. I find it odd that something can be so profound, yet deemed so worthless.
would pay for music, but only great music and even then only to hear it live. Otherwise I would cover the costs of production, but most definitely NOT the price of promotion (the RIAA's excuse for $15 cds)
And after you so generously cover the cost of production, what's the artist going to live on, their good looks?
I've seen a lot of media attention (at least in the local news) about security issues. One resport described the ability of knowledgeable netheads to access files on your machine while connected to the net. Knowing all of the security problems that have plagued MS products, I'd have a hard time believing that people would knowingly put their own personal machines in this kind of jeopardy simply because MS offers a free web server.
As much as I like Slashdot, and as much as I admire the blood, sweat, and tears that Rob and Hemos have put into the site, what is it about Slashdot that Andover.net found compelling enough acquire it? Was it the target audience, and the prospect of generating ad revenue? This may seem like a dumb question, but I find the business aspect of the deal interesting.
I agree...CD prices are way out of line. But what amazes me is that people keep right on buying them. Either that, or they feel like the high prices entitle them to steal the music instead.
I'm not one of those hypocrites who preach one thing and then do something else - the last time I bought a CD was about a year ago, and before that, purchases were few and far between. I have a grand total of 1 MP3, and this is from a group who openly released on the net. I realize that I'm probably in the extreme minority, but I believe that the market CAN work...all it takes is a little discipline.
I think musicians should be paid for performances, with less emphasis on CD sales. If things continue the way they are, this is what will happen.
This would seem to be the artist's decision, not yours. Whether it's a live performance, or one recorded on a CD, they still created it, and they're still entitled to be compensated if you add it to your collection.
Nonsense.
The problem is that there are so many hands in the cookie jar, and all of them have their own vested interest in keeping (and increasing) their share as much as possible. Just how MUCH do we have to spend on education before we finally realize that we can pay incompetent teachers ANY amount and STILL end up with students who are functionally illiterate? Having attended a private religious high school, it always amazed me how they could accomplish so much more with so much less.
While CEOs do work for shareholders, at least THEY are accountable to someone. The government has proven, in many instances, that it is accountable to no one. What happens when a program is deemed unprofitable for a private sector company? They scrap the program. The government, on the other hand, often keeps right on throwing money at it. Since every new program creates a new special interest, it behooves every American citizen to see that these programs are kept to a MINIMUM.
As far as the local taxes... they also pay to build/repair roads the employees and shipping companies use.
Then what are gas taxes for? Recently, local gas stations stopped posting the amount of tax that made up the price per gallon of gas. This is worrisome, since raising this tax would be almost invisible to the average consumer - most people would assume that it's just a sporadic increase in the price of gas.
We're taxed to death already, and there's no end in sight. It's no secret that no matter HOW MUCH OF OUR HARD-EARNED MONEY we are forced to give the government, there will be no shortage of ways to waste it. Let's move in the OTHER direction for once. If local merchants are complaining about the local sales tax, how about repealing it, rather than adding a new one?
Well, I do know this...you can put all the money you want into a good stereo system, but at some point, the sheer volume of the sound causes the inner ear to generate its own harmonics, thereby making it sound WORSE.
Other than that, help me understand why everyone within a few hundred feet should have to listen to your car stereo, anyway.
Hmmm...I guess I know *how* people destroy their hearing, but I'm still not sure WHY they do it. As for me personally, I understand the allure of rock concerts, but I've chosen *not* to attend many of them for this very reason. I never saw the logic behind paying a bunch of rock bands (or ska or whatever) to damage my hearing for me.
You've just taken the wind out of the sails of everyone proposing that just because music can be digitally encoded, it is therefore "information," and should be free.
As far as traditional storage, there's analog audio tape, and this has to be handled with great care in order to maintain its quality. Variations in humidity and temperature, as well as accidental exposure to magnetic fields, etc. can have a significant impact on the quality of a tape.
Vinyl has its drawbacks as well - each play introduces wear and tear on the record surface, and over time, diminishes the quality of the recording. The maintenance is higher, and warpage, if severe enough, will destroy its usefulness completely.
I think the CD is the clear winner, at least for now.
By then I hope to have destroyed my hearing enough not to care, but there will always be a gnawing feeling in the back of my mind that I'm missing something.
I know it happens all the time, but why would anyone want to knowingly destroy their hearing?
Five state senators have recently proposed legislation that would REQUIRE the prominent display of the ten commandments in public schools. There's an article about it here. The opening sentence (a product of its author, I admit) is quite humorous in an of itself:
Five Republican state lawmakers Thursday proposed posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms across Colorado as a way to make schools safer.
The Columbine shooting, though inexcusable in my opinion, taught us that the social hell faced by many students can lead to tragic results. So how do we solve the problem? By giving students yet ANOTHER way to call into question individual differences. Problem solved. NOT!
If anything, this article points to a very corrupt practice I see in our government - the tendency to tack on amendments that have *nothing* to do with the original legislation. The *national* proposal to *allow* the ten commandments to be posted in schools and other government buildings was proposed as an *amendment* to laws being considered for gun control. What does religion have to do with (illusory) gun control?
These lawmakers need to find another job. Ideas are welcome.
I am happy to see that there are still people who aren't drowning in the "music should be free" frenzy. The truth is, that the creation of music is like any other endeavor: Because it requires time, energy, talent, and other resources, it's anything BUT free. The compensation afforded artists should cover not only the cost of production and distribution, but acknowledge the value that the music has to its listeners.
To echo your sentiment, if you like it and listen to it, pay for it. IMHO, the greatest thing about the MP3 movement has nothing to do with whether or not music is free. Instead, it's about a dramatic shift in who has control over an artist's material, and how much it will cost.
I agree with your implication that the mere presence procreation does not necessarily make it a natural "law," but I completely disagree with the notion that pleasure is a necessary component of procreation. Pleasure or not, humans have a natural TENDENCY to procreate. To suggest that a life-long commitment (that of child rearing) is only viable because of a few seconds of pleasure that MAY play a role during conception, is far too simplistic.
Before the industrial revolution, it was even NECESSARY - each family member assumed a role in the support of the entire family unit. In many situations, procreation was necessary for survival.
Today, there are many things that drive people to procreate - I suspect that an instinctual desire to nurture and raise offspring is one of the more salient motivating factors.
Didn't MS make use of this concept in some kind of internet mapping software? (Sorry, I forgot its name).
The author of this article neglected to reason that this is also one of Linux's strengths OVER WinNT. If MS releases something that sucks (like that would never happen), NT's "integration" prevents the user from using an alternative. In other words, they're stuck. With Linux, on the other hand, you can pick and choose components based on specific needs. Further, if a specific component isn't up to snuff, you can either find a better one, or write your own. Despite its high cost, this is NOT an option with NT.
While I personally don't think the free software model will work over the long term (which doesn't preclude the success of Linux), THIS guy is after one thing and one thing only: JOB SECURITY.
Some of us scream about the deterioration of "society." From the old perspective, yes, many of our tried and true institutions (ways of ordering the chaos around us) are crumbling. This is because they are no longer relevant to modern day life. They must be abandoned if real progress (wtf does that mean?) is to occur.
Yes, but some would argue that there are a few "conditions" that completely transcend this chaos, and our attempts to control it. Great societies have fallen because they fell into a state of neglect. Their citizens, having become greedy, lazy, and unable to maintain a sense of self-discipline, made them an easy target for takeover. There are some things we CANNOT abandon no matter how hard we try, because they come with the package - the one we know as humanity.
And YOU get to benefit from THEIR effort at no cost to you whatsoever. THIS is wrong.
I agree that software isn't a "consumable" resource, but everyone on the open source bandwagon conveniently (and consistently) leaves two factors out of the equation: a) the cost to develop, test, market, and support the software, and b) the VALUE provided by the software. Let's face it...if it didn't have any value, there'd be no desire to copy it.
Interesting. You just repeated exactly what you said before. What specifically do you have to say that will offer some substance to what is, in terms of how you've described it, nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion? EVERYONE has opinions.
To flesh this out a little more, it's more important than you think. If you start your professional career at a given wage, and each successive employer has access to your previous wage, what's the first thing that's likely to happen? The offers you receive won't be based on the VALUE of the work you'll be doing for them, it will be based on what THEY consider to be a "reasonable" increase over what you made at your previous employer. If your previous employer was one of those, "we don't pay very well, but the work is VERY interesting" types, you're going to have a VERY hard time making up for this. Also, what if you happen to be in a situation where you had to accept a position for LESS money than you made previously, and then moved on to another job, where you might be justified in asking for substantially more? Would a prospective employer be within reason to ask you WHY you moved to a job that payed less? This would seem to open the possibility for all kinds of meddlesome questions.
Your post is very pessimistic, and it fails to consider what many of the post have done: software vendors are banking on the presumption that consumers will be STUPID enough to purchase software with this kind dreck attached to it. Let's not forget - these companies are SELLING us something. This involves a condition whereby one party agrees to exchange THEIR money for what it is the software company is offering. This license seems to treat any revenue from these kinds of licenses as a foregone conclusion.
At the risk of stating the obvious, a company can't exist without sufficient revenue. If enough customers find this kind of agreement as hideous as it really is, they'll simply refuse to purchase the product. Revenue falls, company goes under, end of story. How many times do you think this will have to happen before software companies decide that this kind of license is tantamount to putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger?
Once a user signs an agreement, they're stuck...but no software company can MAKE you buy their product, and this is something that consumers would do well to remember. I'd just love to be able to send a letter to one or more of these companies:
To Whom it may concern:
We have been long-time consumers of your products in the past, and we are pleased with the results we have been able to achieve. I regret to inform you, however, that we are unable to continue a relationship with your company. Because we have found your new licensing requirements unacceptable, we will be replacing your software with an alternative that has far more reasonable terms governing its use.
Have a nice day.
Sincerely,
John Q. ITProfessional