They key problem in this mess isn't Netflix using up so much bandwidth (they aren't pumping things out, consumers are pulling things down)... it's actually Cogent. Cogent is clearly not paying to keep up with the data Netflix is consuming. Cogent needs to pay Verizon more to ship the data around (according to their peering agreement)... and should probably pass that data cost back onto Netflix which will force Netflix to find ways to balance out the bandwidth they consume.
Netflix's proposed solution is a legitimate strategy that reduces congestion and helps both Netflix AND the ISP they place with. The ISP receives less inbound traffic (usually good for their peering agreements), the ISP's customers get access to a service they desire, and Netflix is able to place some cheap servers.
Netflix is not a victim, I agree... but neither are they some type of protection racket trying to force tier1s to place their server. Netflix would be no threat if people weren't subscribing to it, so your analogy is a little off there.
The funny thing is, this article is an example of the system working as intended. The packets are being dropped because Netflix data appears to be flowing upstream faster than Cogent is paying Verizon. This is not a net neutrality issue... quite simply, Cogent is trying to push more data into Verizon than they are paying Verizon to handle.
All anti-net neutrality demands are attempting to do is treat packets unequally (e.g., allow Netflix packets through but not other customers on the Cogent network). You know, we can already do that easily: If Netflix wants to improve their bandwidth to Verizon customers, they start negotiating directly with Verizon for an extra uplink. Alternatively, they can do what they are doing here, and wait for their ISP and upstream to battle it out and see who has bigger clout (e.g., will Verizon's customers change ISPs if Verizon doesn't get the bandwidth sorted out, or will Netflix simply be replaced with a faster alternative?).
Destroying net neutrality achieves nothing, and just makes it basically a given that you will one day have an "express email" delivery charge to ensure your email is delivered in under a week;-)
Hehe. They do seem to keep missing the point that putting a "Trolling" option automatically gives the trolls something to avoid though (thereby skewing their data). I mean, all their study is proving is that there is a certain type of troll who is narcissistic enough to enjoy admitting this fact to others... right?
this is a standard and widely used library that is an industry standard (regardless of what you perceive it's quality to be).
Which of the many mutually incompatible versions in common use is the "industry standard"?
Not sure how version incompatibility weighs into this? Either way, your answer to this question is: all of them. See http://www.similartech.com/cat....
I mean, Panasonic uses it on their own site...
That does not in any way suggest that it's suitable for use by apps for their VIERA TVs.
And so far, they have provided not one hint as to how jQuery is *bad* for their VIERA TVs. Again, your (subjective) opinion of the code quality in jQuery only makes sense if this is likely to have some impact. What is this impact? Are they worried about bugs? Performance? What is the danger to Panasonic from using this library?
Even if you don't like jQuery, and don't agree with the coding style, and have a host of other subjective opinions about it... the simple fact is Panasonic is supposed to be a professional business. Referring to something used on 70% of web as a "hack" stinks of either a completely unprofessional elitism (assuming the reviewer is technically competent), or more likely an uninformed reviewer ("never attribute to malice...").*
* I don't actually particularly love jQuery by the way... but I do recognise what they have attempted to create, and can readily see the advantages their API brings over most raw DOM manipulation code people write.
Except.... I'm not quite sure what Panasonic gains by rejecting the app. I mean, sure, lets pretend for a moment that your opinion is not just boring ol' developer elitism... why does Panasonic care that the developer here used jQuery? It isn't the same thing as depending on flash or other such stuff... this is a standard and widely used library that is an industry standard (regardless of what you perceive it's quality to be). I mean, Panasonic uses it on their own site...
How is Panasonic harmed by this person using jQuery?
In terms of coding, a "fork" of a project usually indicates and offshoot of an existing project. I.e., the rule tends to be the newest kid on the block is the fork.
In this case, the Nagios people are arguing that because they had the domain name all along, the monitoring-plugins project is a fork. In spite of the fact that Nagios branched their code from the existing monitoring-plugins project... in spite of the fact that Nagios's brand new development team has never contributed a single line of code to the existing code base they branched.
Basically, Nagios can claim whatever they want about the name (sure, it's their name, they have a right to use it). But from every definition of "fork", Nagios is actually the fork. Attempting to claim otherwise is extremely misguided at best (outright lying is more likely), as the *only* thing Nagios has from the original project is the domain name.
It would be like someone taking ownership of my slashdot username, and then try and claim they were the real lilrobbie the whole time. They are lilrobbie *now*... but they can never assert they have always been lilrobbie.
Wait... wait... wait... Are you saying that it DOESN'T cost a web service money to consume bandwidth? How on earth did their ISP give them that plan?
This is not the way connections work. As a consumer, I generally only pay for my downloads, because I have very little upload. But any *actual* site has their own upstream caps that they must pay for. The service pays THEIR ISP for the bandwidth they consume. So it does very directly cost them money.
Perhaps you're arguing that the chains in the middle don't get paid directly... but even that is either a lie or a misunderstanding by you. This is the whole point of peering agreements and exchange... because that is how the links in the middle get paid. Your ISP pays a bigger ISP (or a specialised backbone) to transport their data to other networks.
So no. Both sides of the internet are paying for their access and data. It's the greedy buggers in the middle that seem to be somehow not understanding this.
Isn't this one of those situations though where if you are likely to be rubber-hosed, you probably would have compiled the kernel yourself with this type of thing disabled?
I can't see someone downloading and installing a pre-compiled distro if they are that worried about security....
I do follow your point, I just don't agree with the assertion it is easy;-). The ways to game a system like this are blindingly obvious.
I am honestly thrilled it works at your company:) (how big is your company out of interest?). I haven't disputed that it can work under certain conditions. But, it does require either a very carefully engineered reward system (i.e., accurate metrics that can be tracked to ensure there isn't deliberate under-spending being performed), or a group of honest people who genuinely care about the company's health and the customers they serve. Metrics work well for sales companies, but are difficult to enforce for a lot of tech-heavy or research heavy jobs. In the latter two, the metrics are not obvious for tracking expenditure.
I'm interested as to how your department is able to underspend four years in a row. Did they get any change to their budget after underspending the first year (i.e., up, down, stagnant)?
If you're interested in the results of driving towards savings, it's worth looking at a book called "The Wallmart Effect". The plot spoiler is that continually trying to save more money will inevitably lead to long-term sacrifices to allow short-term savings. If you make someone's salary dependent on how little they spend, they find intelligent ways to hide the accumulating debt from you (this isn't a hypothetical situation... this actually is happening with numerous large supermarket chains).
Your point is correct, as is the one you replied to. The parent was basically saying that *if the department knew in advance* that underspend would result in a reward (as you suggested), it is highly likely to eventually degrade into creative accounting that reports an underspend (to secure the bonus), at the expense of delivering functionality.
Your situation works because no-one benefited directly from the savings, and no-one was focused on those savings. As you stated, you focused on delivery. This seems like an unusual situation to me though, as many places I've worked at are loaded with people who are strongly motivated by fiscal means rather than customer/company loyalty.
If the focus somehow remains on services, there is no problem with rewarding savings. If *just* savings are rewarded, the system would fall into a heap quickly though due to human greed.
You and Linus actually fully agree on this topic. That is precisely why he is throwing said tantrum... the size and churn landing annoys him because it's clear that people have not taken due care before submitting this stuff to his tree.
Your technical proposals are all spot on. But, this little thing on the website has grown from a really simple piece of code that uses the local time to one that needs to one that
a) determine the timezone from geoip b) as geoip can be badly wrong when used with strange 3G networks/proxies/gateway, determine if the timezone is *actually* the one the user is c) when geoip fails, ask the user for their timezone manually
Knowing the amount of work involved in coding... this is sounding like their 100 day estimate is accurate. Anything less than all 3 will not fix the complaint. All 3 will need design review (copying and pasting from codeproject doesn't count as "design"), then test plans, then coding activities, test reports, verification reports... 2 people for 2 weeks = 10 days, and that is assuming there is no budgeting, and the resources are sitting around idle.
The long and short of it is: your technical proposals feel like they are adding more credence to the BBC's decision to pull the clock. Why are websites required to work around the fact the user has somehow borked the auto time sync every OS since early 2000 has shipped with?
You're right getting an accurate time is easy... the hard part is figuring out a timezone. geoip is unreliable due to proxies, so how else are you supposed to guess which timezone the user is in?
The problem (as described in comments below) is that this likely arose because the user did not accurately set their own local time... most probably including incorrect timezone. If the user's own computer time details cannot be trusted, you are basically lost, as it will be impossible to tell what timezone the viewer is in.
3 months ago I would have agreed with you. Now I think you just have insufficient experience with JavaScript to understand "maintainability" when you see it;-)
See jQuery, Backbone, underscore, mustache and a myriad of other extremely clean and highly polished open source libraries out there. Every one of those libraries can be read top to bottom AND UNDERSTOOD in well under a few hours.
JS has problems, as does every language. *BUT* it is a powerful language, and deserves consideration as a language for serious developers.
In my case, it wasn't too hard. She had grown up around consoles etc., and was happy to upgrade to some harder stuff.
But... I have successfully converted quite a few of my non-gamer friends into social gamers (male and female). A few points:
Anti-gamers fall into two categories: (A) they think it's infantile and can't see how it is anything other than brain rotting (B) they simply don't see (or can't imagine) sufficient return on investment for sunk effort
(A)'s can easily be converted if they have a few ounces of respect for you. I mean, you aren't infantile, so it doesn't make sense for them to dismiss something you do as an infantile or immature interest. My efforts in this area usually relate to finding the things that appeal to them on a general level (e.g., high-level strategy, adrenaline and energetic). One friend liked political discourse... so I play games that have an emphasis on social leadership types (e.g., guilds, small teams). Another friend is competitive, so its score-boards all the way. My spouse and I do co-op games only (Diablo III, Borderlands 2)... she likes the story line, and doesn't like competing with me (for similar reasons as you mentioned).
(B)'s, however, should generally be left to their rather rational choice. You can tell a (B) category because she doesn't think games are just for kids and boring... she just simply chooses to not spend her time doing that type of thing. In which case, good on her... she is exercising the same privilege you have in not learning to:)
So... how does the funding get put together to make the next episode/movie/book/song? Because, in your world... I can't possibly understand how consuming something for free you are actually expected by the creator to pay for doesn't result in the creator starving...?
All good points. I can't refute most of them, because you are absolutely right. Levels of punishment are definitely absurd... the numbers in damages thrown around in various court cases are crazy.
But... whereas you have a well reasoned view of the impacts of not paying for things that are taken, and have a load of good reasons and cases where this type of behaviour isn't as bad as it seems.... many, many of people I see first-hand using pirated software fit none of the categories you've described. Most experience I've had with this issue is from people who feel very self-entitled about things, and frequently are trying to rationalise their own stinginess as some type of political or economic protest.
This article was about an app store that gave away pirated copies of extremely inexpensive applications (mobile apps are generally $20), to people who already have paid hundreds of dollars for the hardware and phone contract. This isn't teachers, this isn't poor working class (or if they are, I wish I made that much... I'm still running a 3rd hand Nokia E63). This type of person and behaviour doesn't fit the exceptional circumstances you're talking about, as they have the money, they just don't want to spend it. *That* is the person that I don't think has any defense for what they do.
Again, it's been a pleasure discussing this with you. You've helped reveal some more shades of grey I hadn't previously noticed, which is always an enjoyable experience:)
That is a much more reasoned response... now I'm interested:)
You make a good point with regards to the severity of punishment for certain ages of people. I definitely agree with you that current modes of enforcement do take things to far, especially with the current shakedown approach being taken by the RIAA. But, as a parent, it is your responsibility definitely at that stage to react appropriately to your kid doing this type of thing. If they have no income, then it really isn't a problem yet. If they have a steady income, and are simply pirating because they don't want to pay, there is potentially a discussion that needs to be had about the fairness of exchange. Again, as you are correct in identifying, no external body will have an idea of the appropriate response here.
So, I am happy to concede age as something that affects what happens. However.... if you are a 20yro with a steady job... perhaps the situation is different. If you are a 30yro with a steady job, the situation is very different. At this point... you *have* the means to buy these things legally if you made paying a priority (e.g., go out drinking one less weekend). You are 100% correct in that in my younger days I pirated heaaps of things. But, at some point I grew up and realised that I needed to pay people to encourage more production of things that I like.
This, to me, is why piracy is not a defensible thing. Yes, there are mitigating factors as you've pointed out (they are all good points by the way... thanks for taking the time to share them). Yes, the current legal response is just ludicrous. But... even a 15yro should be taught by someone (e.g., parents) that if you never contribute back to things you like, then those things will stop being made. And for a 30yro, piracy is a deliberate and willful choice, and they deserve some type of punishment for choosing to recognise this important social contract.
Also just to clarify, I said contribute back... so if perhaps the pirates found something useful to do in return...? This is one of the reason free2play games are good value in my opinion. Most free2play allow people to be community/opponents/teammates etc., which is actually contributing to the success of the game in the long run. Maybe more software and/or music could do things like this? If you don't have money to contribute... perhaps you can contribute time and energy instead?
Ahh... I suddenly see why you put that as your signature. It is quite fitting. So. Let's pretend for a few seconds that you're interested in genuine discussion about this issue, rather than just trolling as you seem to be.
If you don't like "stealing" or "theft", let's put another term in there. What about "copyright infringement"... do you feel good about that one?
*If* you substitute your new word into my argument (yes, it is an argument with points that require refuting, none of which you have addressed), the argument still stands. The end result (i.e., the application) is being consumed, the creator of said content was not reimbursed as they expected. You so far seem incapable of understanding that if everybody did that, there would no longer be software written. So... software pirates are contributing nothing back, and are parasitic.
Any counter arguments, or are you just going to stick to ad hominem attacks?
Sorry I misunderstood. But, we still have the little problem where a copy of an app has been taken, but no recompense has been paid. The app developer isn't signing a contract guaranteeing they'll be paid for the act of *writing* the application. They are however making a contract effectively with their consumers (as in every single market place in the known universe) saying if you use the application, you will meet whatever requirements they have on you. Standard behaviour is if you don't agree with the price and conditions, then you obviously don't need the software enough and should do without.
In using a pirate application, you gained benefits in the form of access to the app. Yet, you denied the developer compensation for the time and effort they put into developing this useful application. How can this possibly be justified? The argument that "the developer didn't lose anything" is pure rubbish... the software was written for trade. You use the application, you pay the creator for the privilege. The only thing in society that doesn't work this way are charities... and apparently the day jobs of software pirates. I suspect most armchair pirates would get quite irate if people stopped wanting to pay for what they consumed;-)
Pirates are parasites in the best case scenario, and outright thieves in the more likely case.
Please don't lump us open source fans in with this group. I like open source because it makes my job as a developer easier, but I'm also absolutely fine with paying for my software.
Open source isn't saying the price of everything is free... open source is saying that I may want reimbursement in a non-monetary form as defined in the licence (e.g., contributing bug fixes back, open-sourcing your improvements, perhaps nothing at all).
Slashdot Mirror
They key problem in this mess isn't Netflix using up so much bandwidth (they aren't pumping things out, consumers are pulling things down)... it's actually Cogent. Cogent is clearly not paying to keep up with the data Netflix is consuming. Cogent needs to pay Verizon more to ship the data around (according to their peering agreement)... and should probably pass that data cost back onto Netflix which will force Netflix to find ways to balance out the bandwidth they consume.
Netflix's proposed solution is a legitimate strategy that reduces congestion and helps both Netflix AND the ISP they place with. The ISP receives less inbound traffic (usually good for their peering agreements), the ISP's customers get access to a service they desire, and Netflix is able to place some cheap servers.
Netflix is not a victim, I agree... but neither are they some type of protection racket trying to force tier1s to place their server. Netflix would be no threat if people weren't subscribing to it, so your analogy is a little off there.
The funny thing is, this article is an example of the system working as intended. The packets are being dropped because Netflix data appears to be flowing upstream faster than Cogent is paying Verizon. This is not a net neutrality issue... quite simply, Cogent is trying to push more data into Verizon than they are paying Verizon to handle.
All anti-net neutrality demands are attempting to do is treat packets unequally (e.g., allow Netflix packets through but not other customers on the Cogent network). You know, we can already do that easily: If Netflix wants to improve their bandwidth to Verizon customers, they start negotiating directly with Verizon for an extra uplink. Alternatively, they can do what they are doing here, and wait for their ISP and upstream to battle it out and see who has bigger clout (e.g., will Verizon's customers change ISPs if Verizon doesn't get the bandwidth sorted out, or will Netflix simply be replaced with a faster alternative?).
Destroying net neutrality achieves nothing, and just makes it basically a given that you will one day have an "express email" delivery charge to ensure your email is delivered in under a week ;-)
Hehe. They do seem to keep missing the point that putting a "Trolling" option automatically gives the trolls something to avoid though (thereby skewing their data). I mean, all their study is proving is that there is a certain type of troll who is narcissistic enough to enjoy admitting this fact to others... right?
this is a standard and widely used library that is an industry standard (regardless of what you perceive it's quality to be).
Which of the many mutually incompatible versions in common use is the "industry standard"?
Not sure how version incompatibility weighs into this? Either way, your answer to this question is: all of them. See http://www.similartech.com/cat....
I mean, Panasonic uses it on their own site...
That does not in any way suggest that it's suitable for use by apps for their VIERA TVs.
And so far, they have provided not one hint as to how jQuery is *bad* for their VIERA TVs. Again, your (subjective) opinion of the code quality in jQuery only makes sense if this is likely to have some impact. What is this impact? Are they worried about bugs? Performance? What is the danger to Panasonic from using this library?
Even if you don't like jQuery, and don't agree with the coding style, and have a host of other subjective opinions about it... the simple fact is Panasonic is supposed to be a professional business. Referring to something used on 70% of web as a "hack" stinks of either a completely unprofessional elitism (assuming the reviewer is technically competent), or more likely an uninformed reviewer ("never attribute to malice...").*
* I don't actually particularly love jQuery by the way... but I do recognise what they have attempted to create, and can readily see the advantages their API brings over most raw DOM manipulation code people write.
Except.... I'm not quite sure what Panasonic gains by rejecting the app. I mean, sure, lets pretend for a moment that your opinion is not just boring ol' developer elitism... why does Panasonic care that the developer here used jQuery? It isn't the same thing as depending on flash or other such stuff... this is a standard and widely used library that is an industry standard (regardless of what you perceive it's quality to be). I mean, Panasonic uses it on their own site...
How is Panasonic harmed by this person using jQuery?
In terms of coding, a "fork" of a project usually indicates and offshoot of an existing project. I.e., the rule tends to be the newest kid on the block is the fork.
In this case, the Nagios people are arguing that because they had the domain name all along, the monitoring-plugins project is a fork. In spite of the fact that Nagios branched their code from the existing monitoring-plugins project... in spite of the fact that Nagios's brand new development team has never contributed a single line of code to the existing code base they branched.
Basically, Nagios can claim whatever they want about the name (sure, it's their name, they have a right to use it). But from every definition of "fork", Nagios is actually the fork. Attempting to claim otherwise is extremely misguided at best (outright lying is more likely), as the *only* thing Nagios has from the original project is the domain name.
It would be like someone taking ownership of my slashdot username, and then try and claim they were the real lilrobbie the whole time. They are lilrobbie *now*... but they can never assert they have always been lilrobbie.
Wait... wait... wait... Are you saying that it DOESN'T cost a web service money to consume bandwidth? How on earth did their ISP give them that plan?
This is not the way connections work. As a consumer, I generally only pay for my downloads, because I have very little upload. But any *actual* site has their own upstream caps that they must pay for. The service pays THEIR ISP for the bandwidth they consume. So it does very directly cost them money.
Perhaps you're arguing that the chains in the middle don't get paid directly... but even that is either a lie or a misunderstanding by you. This is the whole point of peering agreements and exchange... because that is how the links in the middle get paid. Your ISP pays a bigger ISP (or a specialised backbone) to transport their data to other networks.
So no. Both sides of the internet are paying for their access and data. It's the greedy buggers in the middle that seem to be somehow not understanding this.
Isn't this one of those situations though where if you are likely to be rubber-hosed, you probably would have compiled the kernel yourself with this type of thing disabled?
I can't see someone downloading and installing a pre-compiled distro if they are that worried about security....
I do follow your point, I just don't agree with the assertion it is easy ;-). The ways to game a system like this are blindingly obvious.
I am honestly thrilled it works at your company :) (how big is your company out of interest?). I haven't disputed that it can work under certain conditions. But, it does require either a very carefully engineered reward system (i.e., accurate metrics that can be tracked to ensure there isn't deliberate under-spending being performed), or a group of honest people who genuinely care about the company's health and the customers they serve. Metrics work well for sales companies, but are difficult to enforce for a lot of tech-heavy or research heavy jobs. In the latter two, the metrics are not obvious for tracking expenditure.
I'm interested as to how your department is able to underspend four years in a row. Did they get any change to their budget after underspending the first year (i.e., up, down, stagnant)?
If you're interested in the results of driving towards savings, it's worth looking at a book called "The Wallmart Effect". The plot spoiler is that continually trying to save more money will inevitably lead to long-term sacrifices to allow short-term savings. If you make someone's salary dependent on how little they spend, they find intelligent ways to hide the accumulating debt from you (this isn't a hypothetical situation... this actually is happening with numerous large supermarket chains).
Your point is correct, as is the one you replied to. The parent was basically saying that *if the department knew in advance* that underspend would result in a reward (as you suggested), it is highly likely to eventually degrade into creative accounting that reports an underspend (to secure the bonus), at the expense of delivering functionality.
Your situation works because no-one benefited directly from the savings, and no-one was focused on those savings. As you stated, you focused on delivery. This seems like an unusual situation to me though, as many places I've worked at are loaded with people who are strongly motivated by fiscal means rather than customer/company loyalty.
If the focus somehow remains on services, there is no problem with rewarding savings. If *just* savings are rewarded, the system would fall into a heap quickly though due to human greed.
Do you write many drivers?
You and Linus actually fully agree on this topic. That is precisely why he is throwing said tantrum... the size and churn landing annoys him because it's clear that people have not taken due care before submitting this stuff to his tree.
The article makes it pretty clear the user expectation was "I visit the BBC site, I see accurate time for my current timezone"
Your solution basically ignores the whole reason the complaint was spawned in the first place...
Your technical proposals are all spot on. But, this little thing on the website has grown from a really simple piece of code that uses the local time to one that needs to one that
a) determine the timezone from geoip
b) as geoip can be badly wrong when used with strange 3G networks/proxies/gateway, determine if the timezone is *actually* the one the user is
c) when geoip fails, ask the user for their timezone manually
Knowing the amount of work involved in coding... this is sounding like their 100 day estimate is accurate. Anything less than all 3 will not fix the complaint. All 3 will need design review (copying and pasting from codeproject doesn't count as "design"), then test plans, then coding activities, test reports, verification reports... 2 people for 2 weeks = 10 days, and that is assuming there is no budgeting, and the resources are sitting around idle.
The long and short of it is: your technical proposals feel like they are adding more credence to the BBC's decision to pull the clock. Why are websites required to work around the fact the user has somehow borked the auto time sync every OS since early 2000 has shipped with?
You're right getting an accurate time is easy... the hard part is figuring out a timezone. geoip is unreliable due to proxies, so how else are you supposed to guess which timezone the user is in?
The problem (as described in comments below) is that this likely arose because the user did not accurately set their own local time... most probably including incorrect timezone. If the user's own computer time details cannot be trusted, you are basically lost, as it will be impossible to tell what timezone the viewer is in.
3 months ago I would have agreed with you. Now I think you just have insufficient experience with JavaScript to understand "maintainability" when you see it ;-)
See jQuery, Backbone, underscore, mustache and a myriad of other extremely clean and highly polished open source libraries out there. Every one of those libraries can be read top to bottom AND UNDERSTOOD in well under a few hours.
JS has problems, as does every language. *BUT* it is a powerful language, and deserves consideration as a language for serious developers.
In my case, it wasn't too hard. She had grown up around consoles etc., and was happy to upgrade to some harder stuff.
But... I have successfully converted quite a few of my non-gamer friends into social gamers (male and female). A few points:
Anti-gamers fall into two categories:
(A) they think it's infantile and can't see how it is anything other than brain rotting
(B) they simply don't see (or can't imagine) sufficient return on investment for sunk effort
(A)'s can easily be converted if they have a few ounces of respect for you. I mean, you aren't infantile, so it doesn't make sense for them to dismiss something you do as an infantile or immature interest. My efforts in this area usually relate to finding the things that appeal to them on a general level (e.g., high-level strategy, adrenaline and energetic). One friend liked political discourse... so I play games that have an emphasis on social leadership types (e.g., guilds, small teams). Another friend is competitive, so its score-boards all the way. My spouse and I do co-op games only (Diablo III, Borderlands 2)... she likes the story line, and doesn't like competing with me (for similar reasons as you mentioned).
(B)'s, however, should generally be left to their rather rational choice. You can tell a (B) category because she doesn't think games are just for kids and boring... she just simply chooses to not spend her time doing that type of thing. In which case, good on her... she is exercising the same privilege you have in not learning to :)
So... how does the funding get put together to make the next episode/movie/book/song? Because, in your world... I can't possibly understand how consuming something for free you are actually expected by the creator to pay for doesn't result in the creator starving...?
All good points. I can't refute most of them, because you are absolutely right. Levels of punishment are definitely absurd... the numbers in damages thrown around in various court cases are crazy.
But... whereas you have a well reasoned view of the impacts of not paying for things that are taken, and have a load of good reasons and cases where this type of behaviour isn't as bad as it seems.... many, many of people I see first-hand using pirated software fit none of the categories you've described. Most experience I've had with this issue is from people who feel very self-entitled about things, and frequently are trying to rationalise their own stinginess as some type of political or economic protest.
This article was about an app store that gave away pirated copies of extremely inexpensive applications (mobile apps are generally $20), to people who already have paid hundreds of dollars for the hardware and phone contract. This isn't teachers, this isn't poor working class (or if they are, I wish I made that much... I'm still running a 3rd hand Nokia E63). This type of person and behaviour doesn't fit the exceptional circumstances you're talking about, as they have the money, they just don't want to spend it. *That* is the person that I don't think has any defense for what they do.
Again, it's been a pleasure discussing this with you. You've helped reveal some more shades of grey I hadn't previously noticed, which is always an enjoyable experience :)
That is a much more reasoned response... now I'm interested :)
You make a good point with regards to the severity of punishment for certain ages of people. I definitely agree with you that current modes of enforcement do take things to far, especially with the current shakedown approach being taken by the RIAA. But, as a parent, it is your responsibility definitely at that stage to react appropriately to your kid doing this type of thing. If they have no income, then it really isn't a problem yet. If they have a steady income, and are simply pirating because they don't want to pay, there is potentially a discussion that needs to be had about the fairness of exchange. Again, as you are correct in identifying, no external body will have an idea of the appropriate response here.
So, I am happy to concede age as something that affects what happens. However.... if you are a 20yro with a steady job... perhaps the situation is different. If you are a 30yro with a steady job, the situation is very different. At this point... you *have* the means to buy these things legally if you made paying a priority (e.g., go out drinking one less weekend). You are 100% correct in that in my younger days I pirated heaaps of things. But, at some point I grew up and realised that I needed to pay people to encourage more production of things that I like.
This, to me, is why piracy is not a defensible thing. Yes, there are mitigating factors as you've pointed out (they are all good points by the way... thanks for taking the time to share them). Yes, the current legal response is just ludicrous. But... even a 15yro should be taught by someone (e.g., parents) that if you never contribute back to things you like, then those things will stop being made. And for a 30yro, piracy is a deliberate and willful choice, and they deserve some type of punishment for choosing to recognise this important social contract.
Also just to clarify, I said contribute back... so if perhaps the pirates found something useful to do in return...? This is one of the reason free2play games are good value in my opinion. Most free2play allow people to be community/opponents/teammates etc., which is actually contributing to the success of the game in the long run. Maybe more software and/or music could do things like this? If you don't have money to contribute... perhaps you can contribute time and energy instead?
Ahh... I suddenly see why you put that as your signature. It is quite fitting. So. Let's pretend for a few seconds that you're interested in genuine discussion about this issue, rather than just trolling as you seem to be.
If you don't like "stealing" or "theft", let's put another term in there. What about "copyright infringement"... do you feel good about that one?
*If* you substitute your new word into my argument (yes, it is an argument with points that require refuting, none of which you have addressed), the argument still stands. The end result (i.e., the application) is being consumed, the creator of said content was not reimbursed as they expected. You so far seem incapable of understanding that if everybody did that, there would no longer be software written. So... software pirates are contributing nothing back, and are parasitic.
Any counter arguments, or are you just going to stick to ad hominem attacks?
Sorry I misunderstood. But, we still have the little problem where a copy of an app has been taken, but no recompense has been paid. The app developer isn't signing a contract guaranteeing they'll be paid for the act of *writing* the application. They are however making a contract effectively with their consumers (as in every single market place in the known universe) saying if you use the application, you will meet whatever requirements they have on you. Standard behaviour is if you don't agree with the price and conditions, then you obviously don't need the software enough and should do without.
In using a pirate application, you gained benefits in the form of access to the app. Yet, you denied the developer compensation for the time and effort they put into developing this useful application. How can this possibly be justified? The argument that "the developer didn't lose anything" is pure rubbish... the software was written for trade. You use the application, you pay the creator for the privilege. The only thing in society that doesn't work this way are charities... and apparently the day jobs of software pirates. I suspect most armchair pirates would get quite irate if people stopped wanting to pay for what they consumed ;-)
Pirates are parasites in the best case scenario, and outright thieves in the more likely case.
Oh that's easy! Just don't ever be successful :)
Please don't lump us open source fans in with this group. I like open source because it makes my job as a developer easier, but I'm also absolutely fine with paying for my software.
Open source isn't saying the price of everything is free... open source is saying that I may want reimbursement in a non-monetary form as defined in the licence (e.g., contributing bug fixes back, open-sourcing your improvements, perhaps nothing at all).