The Internet stops working if the music cartel is able to force the issue. Their solution will be like amputating a leg to lance a boil. They will care only for their own personal limited interests and care nothing of the broader social or economic impact of the solution.
Censorship of basic news reporting, political commentary, and suppression of business rivals being an obvious direct effect.
If you are a real musician, all you need to do is sit down and point yourself at a microphone. Many older masterpieces are nothing more than this.
Making the original is a matter of creativity which is nearly impossible to quantify.
However, if you are any good at your job then laying it down should be trivial. If this is not the case then it is good that the economics of the situation is driving you out of the market.
The "owner" can only exert control so long as something is entirely within their possession. After it leaves that state, there is no good moral or ethical argument for placing the rights of the "artiste" above everyone elses.
You're basically arguing that everyone elses rights should be subservient to the those of the creative classes and that's simply contradictory to the notion of equality under the law.
A creative work cannot really be owned because it can't really be contained. It does not exist in a single time and place once it is released into the wild.
Once it is "out there", controlling it becomes a matter of restricting the liberties of others.
Trampling the First Sale Doctrine is a great example of copyright run amok. So's Harlan Ellison.
This is not a new problem. It's just more visible because of the nature of the Internet. Everything is out in the open.
I think the real problem that the industry is having has nothing to do with "piracy". The industry is producing a very forgettable product these days and the stuff that is able to stand the test of time can only be sold to you once.
There are no new formats for the industry to use as a cash cow. They can't sell you the same thing over and over again.
It's really funny that this comes right after an article about how everyone is just streaming these days. It's like everyone has forgotten about MTV and radio.
You simply don't need Pandora or Napster to get your daily dose of forgettable Top 40 music.
Your response nicely sums up the entire gatekeeper position on this situation.
You are trying to conflate actual natural rights with a temporary statutory grant that exists for the sole purpose of achieving some public good. There is simply no inalienable right to a copyright or a patent. Intellectual property is a legal fiction that's better described as artificial property.
It gets really interesting when people like you want to trample actual natural rights (like speech and personal property) in order to defend an expansive view of copyright that doesn't even exist in the law.
That particular problem was directly by the authors of the Constitution.
Some people want the ability to choose for themselves and others seem to want total dependence. The idea of becoming a eunuch for the sake of convenience is not far off the mark really.
The founding fathers are spinning in their graves over this "ownership is a burden" rhetoric. It was one of the key things they fought for.
It's funny you should mention this because this is exactly what I do when I get bored with my 32G thumbdrive in the car. All of my music is on it but sometimes I want something else. That something could be Pandora. Although it can just as easily be the local radio stations.
Pandora and radio are for all of those bands and one hit wonders who's music I have always listened to but never paid for directly.
I think the communist journalist is reading too much into this situation. It's just radio and MTV all over again. Some stuff you just never bother buying. You just listen to it when it comes on the radio.
Certain people also seem to have an interest in grossly overstating the "burden" of ownership. Wasn't the whole point of iTunes in the early days was that it eliminated this "burden of ownership". Wasn't it supposed to make adding a physical copy of music to your electronic library easy and painless?
It seems the marketing propaganda changes to suit whatever the current product is.
Ignore all of those old ads, we have a new gospel for you today.
I don't "maintain" squat. Something gets ripped when I buy it and just sits around. If a device can accommodate my entire music collection, then there is nothing to "manage".
Ironically, Linux is the perfect example of "API compatibility". It shares that with Unix. You could even make libamiga not dependent with x86 so it would run on things like Sparc, and PPC, and Raspberry PI.
It's bad hacks like Optimus that get dropped on the floor because they are marginal and offer little real benefit from a business point of view.
Most people buy nvidia kit to get rid of crap like Intel and are happy not to run it even if it is force bundled on whatever laptop or desktop they happen to have. Optimius is a peculiar beast not worth the noise you're making over it.
> Then how come when I am running their driver and some > issue requires me to Ctrl+Alt+F1 to get a console to fix X > or something that is bogging down X, I get a total crap > video mode with glyphs
Perhaps you should try a different virtual console.
I have used that feature with nvidia blob drivers forever and haven't ever had the kind of problems you describe.
Although ATI drivers do give me problems in that regard.
Slashdot Mirror
...except a lot of us were whining about the "2nd class" nature of the H1-B more than the "competition" aspect of it.
Someone valuable enough to import for their skills is valuable enough to offer full status to immediately.
The Internet stops working if the music cartel is able to force the issue. Their solution will be like amputating a leg to lance a boil. They will care only for their own personal limited interests and care nothing of the broader social or economic impact of the solution.
Censorship of basic news reporting, political commentary, and suppression of business rivals being an obvious direct effect.
Actually, Native Americans did have a notion of property.
Try an argument based on something more than urban legend next time.
Copyrights expire.
Property doesn't.
This "it's expensive" argument is such a joke.
If you are a real musician, all you need to do is sit down and point yourself at a microphone. Many older masterpieces are nothing more than this.
Making the original is a matter of creativity which is nearly impossible to quantify.
However, if you are any good at your job then laying it down should be trivial. If this is not the case then it is good that the economics of the situation is driving you out of the market.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
The "owner" can only exert control so long as something is entirely within their possession. After it leaves that state, there is no good moral or ethical argument for placing the rights of the "artiste" above everyone elses.
You're basically arguing that everyone elses rights should be subservient to the those of the creative classes and that's simply contradictory to the notion of equality under the law.
A creative work cannot really be owned because it can't really be contained. It does not exist in a single time and place once it is released into the wild.
Once it is "out there", controlling it becomes a matter of restricting the liberties of others.
Trampling the First Sale Doctrine is a great example of copyright run amok. So's Harlan Ellison.
No. The solution is not to pay cartels that want to destroy the rest of society to maintain their grip on their particular industry.
Pay the artist. Screw the gatekeeper.
I have twice that many DVDs and it didn't cost nearly that much.
If you are paying "list price" then you are a chump.
There's always bargains and used media resellers.
Video killed the radio star already.
This is not a new problem. It's just more visible because of the nature of the Internet. Everything is out in the open.
I think the real problem that the industry is having has nothing to do with "piracy". The industry is producing a very forgettable product these days and the stuff that is able to stand the test of time can only be sold to you once.
There are no new formats for the industry to use as a cash cow. They can't sell you the same thing over and over again.
It's really funny that this comes right after an article about how everyone is just streaming these days. It's like everyone has forgotten about MTV and radio.
You simply don't need Pandora or Napster to get your daily dose of forgettable Top 40 music.
Your response nicely sums up the entire gatekeeper position on this situation.
You are trying to conflate actual natural rights with a temporary statutory grant that exists for the sole purpose of achieving some public good. There is simply no inalienable right to a copyright or a patent. Intellectual property is a legal fiction that's better described as artificial property.
It gets really interesting when people like you want to trample actual natural rights (like speech and personal property) in order to defend an expansive view of copyright that doesn't even exist in the law.
That particular problem was directly by the authors of the Constitution.
It's not property and never really was. So all of these arguments about devaluing music or not paying for it are all entirely bogus.
Besides: it was always gratis.
Video killed the radio star.
Once you start talking about "compatible devices", the entire convenience part of the argument for streaming is completely shot.
Yup.
You need someone to be your nanny.
That's castration, not suicide.
If you ditch the original packaging, there really isn't much bulk to "content" at all.
The castration comparison is quite appropriate.
Some people want the ability to choose for themselves and others seem to want total dependence. The idea of becoming a eunuch for the sake of convenience is not far off the mark really.
The founding fathers are spinning in their graves over this "ownership is a burden" rhetoric. It was one of the key things they fought for.
You know... life,liberty, property.
It's funny you should mention this because this is exactly what I do when I get bored with my 32G thumbdrive in the car. All of my music is on it but sometimes I want something else. That something could be Pandora. Although it can just as easily be the local radio stations.
Pandora and radio are for all of those bands and one hit wonders who's music I have always listened to but never paid for directly.
I think the communist journalist is reading too much into this situation. It's just radio and MTV all over again. Some stuff you just never bother buying. You just listen to it when it comes on the radio.
Certain people also seem to have an interest in grossly overstating the "burden" of ownership. Wasn't the whole point of iTunes in the early days was that it eliminated this "burden of ownership". Wasn't it supposed to make adding a physical copy of music to your electronic library easy and painless?
It seems the marketing propaganda changes to suit whatever the current product is.
Ignore all of those old ads, we have a new gospel for you today.
I don't "maintain" squat. Something gets ripped when I buy it and just sits around. If a device can accommodate my entire music collection, then there is nothing to "manage".
> Why the animosity to Amiga enthusiasts?
There's plenty of people here that will screech and point at anyone they think isn't part of the herd.
I suspect that's not the old 68K users acting like pod people here.
Ironically, Linux is the perfect example of "API compatibility". It shares that with Unix. You could even make libamiga not dependent with x86 so it would run on things like Sparc, and PPC, and Raspberry PI.
I managed that in 1999.
I suggest attributing your problem to "user error".
> because I don't know what kind of video card it is
There's a very easy way to get around that. Google is your friend.
You should tell the guys in Siberia with the cool 3D RTS for Linux.
Obviously they didn't get the memo.
No. The thing that cause you to be "fucked" is not being able to boot a new kernel.
The idea that you won't be able to compile your own kernel modules because of Microsoft's locked booter is a novel and interesting concept.
I think you've got it reversed.
It's bad hacks like Optimus that get dropped on the floor because they are marginal and offer little real benefit from a business point of view.
Most people buy nvidia kit to get rid of crap like Intel and are happy not to run it even if it is force bundled on whatever laptop or desktop they happen to have. Optimius is a peculiar beast not worth the noise you're making over it.
There's always the idea of having a projected touch screen interface. That's a little bit in the future but not that far really.
Before too long, your phone will be able to do that.
> Then how come when I am running their driver and some
> issue requires me to Ctrl+Alt+F1 to get a console to fix X
> or something that is bogging down X, I get a total crap
> video mode with glyphs
Perhaps you should try a different virtual console.
I have used that feature with nvidia blob drivers forever and haven't ever had the kind of problems you describe.
Although ATI drivers do give me problems in that regard.