I think you're putting too much emphasis on U.S. policies and not enough on U.S. visibility. The people of the United States are seen as the haves by entire cultures of have-nots. The Middle East is not a resource-rich region, and its culture is not built on the same individualist foundations.
The U.S. is a terrorist target not because the terrorists are threatened by our freedom, or even our foreign policy, but because they are jealous of our wealth, which they believe is unjustly acquired through the hedonism our freedom allows. Our freedom and their religious zealotry do factor in, but jealousy is in the driver's seat. That's why Switzerland and Sweden don't factor in. They don't have nearly the wealth, visibility, or influence that the U.S. has.
What you're suggesting is what I have been calling "legislation via litigation" ever since the RIAA started this assault. Don't be worried that it might happen -- be worried that it already has. They have found the number one weakness in our civil justice system and they are exploiting it in a way that no other entity has.
Plenty of businesses have used the civil justice system to burn through their enemies' resources -- just take a look at how the RIAA took on MP3.com in a case that never did finish its run in court. Vivendi Universal refused to settle, MP3.com spent all their money on settlements with the other labels, they had no money left to appeal, and Vivendi Universal bought them up cheap... and dissolved them entirely not long afterwards.
But this is the first time a large entity like the RIAA has taken on such a large number of random civilian individuals, none of which have the resources or the experience to fight them in a fair match. In effect, they are using their vast monetary and legal resources to coerce the public into obeying their rules, not the laws set by our democratically-appointed leaders. Since these cases almost never go to court, there is no judicial review.
I would go so far as to suggest that this constitutes treason against the United States. The RIAA is attempting to usurp the power of the U.S. government by abusing the civil justice system. At the very least, the RIAA is taking advantage of their monetary and legal power in an unfair battle.
Write your congressmen, and tell them you want this onslaught stopped. Tell them how the RIAA is taking advantage of individuals, destroying families' economic well-being, and stealing the future from our children, if you have to. You never know, you might be surprised at the results.
You are not an artist. You are just someone trying to make a living. Every word you utter proves it.
You are not a consumer rights advocate. You are just someone trying to get out of paying for what you want. Every word you utter proves it.
Seriously, you're implying that "artist" and "someone trying to make a living" are mutually exclusive. What makes an artist any different from a programmer, or an architect, or even a bricklayer -- any one of those people could love their profession every bit as much as an artist. Why do you continue to argue that a musician doesn't have to be paid, since he makes music as a labor of love? By that logic, why should ANYONE who loves his job be paid?
You haven't understood anything?
If I go to watch a movie or buy a CD I want to enjoy it. It's so simple.
I do understand. I fully understand the concept of wanting to know the quality of your purchase before you actually spend the money. I have mentioned twice now in this thread that file-sharing is a great tool for this.
But that's not what you've been arguing, so don't try to twist your argument into some defense of consumer rights, and don't put words in my mouth. You've been arguing that artists lose nothing when you copy digital media, regardless of whether or not you keep what you like. And I am telling you that you are wrong. A lot more than $18 worth of time, money, and effort goes into the production of a CD, and at least some part of that time, money, and effort is wasted when you copy the CD without buying it. A lot more than $300 went into the production of Windows XP, and your assertion that nothing is lost when it is copied is fallacious at best. You can call me foolish or arrogant, but you have utterly failed to back up your argument.
I am not saying you have to buy things you don't like. I am saying that you have a moral obligation to pay for the things you download that you DO like, as well as an obligation to delete that which you deem not worth paying for.
The Lord of the Rings would not have made as much money as it did had so many of those people who downloaded it chosen to go ahead and pay for the DVDs, or for tickets to the theater showings. You legitimized your claim to downloading the movies by purchasing the DVDs. That's good. But would you have done the same were you able to download a perfect lossless copy of the DVD?
They are both relative. So it's very hard to measure work and time and then require to get a fair pay.
Wrong. Work and time are constant. Any joe who has had to punch a time card knows that it's not hard to measure work or time at all. Millions of employers around the globe manage to compensate people for the work they do, so don't try to skirt the issue by claiming you don't know the value.
I, like anyone else who works for a living, set a price for my time and labor. If you think that price is unfair, then you don't have to pay it -- but don't try to tell me you still deserve the fruits of my labor just because you think it's overpriced.
Since you say you are a musician, lets try out a simple experiment. I've got one of your songs here. And now I copied it 40 times. On 10 different computers. To 5 different people.
How much did you 'lose'?
I've apparently lost 5 potential customers. Let's go with the standard iTunes rate of $0.99 per song. I've lost $4.95 in sales. Now, unlike the RIAA, I'm willing to lower that number by $0.99 for every one of those five people who listens to the song, decides he/she doesn't like it, and deletes it. But if even one of those people deems the song worth keeping around to listen to, I've lost money on the deal.
Nothing! That's right. Nothing. You don't even know it has happened........
So, what I don't know can't hurt me? I pity the person you marry.
Don't you see? The problem isn't that we won't have new music or that people will stop writing music. Maybe you will stop writing music, but then I don't think it would be a big loss because if that was the case. It's obviously nothing you think is fun if that was to happen....
You arrogant, short-sighted little prick. If I stop writing music it will be because I have to spend my time and energy trying to make a living to feed my family, not because I don't think it's fun. Fun doesn't pay the bills. Fun doesn't put a roof over my head. Fun doesn't put food on the table.
My labor and time are limited resources. I want to spend those resources on the things I love, as does anyone. But your argument gives people free rein to take my time and labor without giving anything in return! How am I supposed to eat? How am I supposed to live?!
Where does it say that musician should earn tons of cash or actually be required to earn anything on their music. They are artists. Makers of art. I know artists who has a ordinary job to get money and do their art on their spare time. There is no human right that says you are required to get paid to do what -YOU- want.
This is your response? The equivalent of "Get a real job?" Fine, let's put this into perspective.
Suppose the public agrees with you, that artists should work only for the love of the art, and don't deserve any monetary compensation since their work can be copied with little effort or cost. Suddenly, every artist becomes a hobbyist, rather than a professional, since there is no longer a market for professional artists and they all need to get "ordinary jobs." There is no reason for artists to study or educate themselves in art because it is a wasted effort. There is no reason for anyone to better themselves and hone their skills because it is a wasted effort.
If you think that the quality of professional entertainment is bad right now, then maybe you need to take a look at the vast majority of what's available on mp3.com (or rather, garage.com, since they seem to have purchased the mp3.com archives) and tell me if you really think that's better. There might be an occasional gem, but it's a needle hidden in a haystack of crap. That's what you get out of hobbyists. The simple truth still stands: you get what you pay for.
You are selfish. You have no respect for the work and time of others, and your argument proves it. When you watch a movie or listen to a song that you've downloaded, you try to justify not paying for it in any
If you steal a car or candy, you are actually taking something which have been made by the use of several difference resources, which can -never- be remade/reclaimed and those in charge of making the things won't get anything in return.
How is this any different for digital content (music, movies, whatever)? Work is a resource. Time is a resource. Skill and experience has value, does it not? Speaking as a musician, I can state that these are certainly the primary requirements in the creation of music and other art.
No one will go home emptyhanded because they didn't get paid.
That's just flat-out wrong. That's EXACTLY what will happen -- the people involved in the creation of the media WILL go home empty-handed because they didn't get paid in your transaction. You might not have taken anything tangible, but you have certainly enjoyed the fruits of their labor. Don't fool yourself into thinking that your actions have no consequences.
No one will lose anything on it.
Also wrong. Those involved in the production of said media lose time, effort, and probably money as well. What's more, the time and effort (and possibly money, as anyone who has had to pay for an education knows) taken to develop the skills required to make said media is an indirect cost that remains unaccounted for in your scenario.
It's impossible for, lets say MS, to lose money on people copying WinXP opposed to someone making cars or mp3 players. Because, once you have made WinXP, it's there. The cost of making one or one billion copies of WinXP is the same.
The ability to mass produce a product with lower costs is the justification used to bring the price of that product down to a price lower than the cost to produce it. I'm pretty sure that it cost MS a lot more than $300 to produce that single copy of WinXP, just like it cost Apple a lot more than $500 to design and create an iPod, or a musician a lot more than $18 to produce a finished recording. Were you to take the design and coding costs into account, you would see that MS does indeed lose on the deal.
The problem is that you are not counting labor and time as resources. They are resources, perhaps the most significant resources at play in our economy, and for you to dismiss them so lightly is irresponsible at best, and at worst, morally and ethically repugnant -- it shows a complete lack of value and respect for the effort and time of others.
I am not saying that the legal action taken by organizations like the RIAA and MPAA is justified, and I am not saying that there is good enough reason to outlaw the creation and use of peer-to-peer software -- in fact, I advocate the use of peer-to-peer software as a form of civil protest against the music industry's legal war. I also consider it a great tool to try new things before you buy them, provided that after it's downloaded, you pay for anything deemed worthy of keeping.
But the argument that "no resources are lost" when digital media is copied effortlessly to new hands does not hold water. The attempt to rationalize the circumvention of the consumer's responsibility to pay for goods and services by using the absence of tangible asset loss as a defense is reprehensible. A true music fan understands this, and chooses to pay for what he loves.
Woo, awesome! Now we can use Linux to load a firmware update that lets us take advantage of new features for iTunes! All that's missing is the ability to run iTunes on Linux!
In simple terms, MySQL is the equivalent of a cheetah. It's fast and lean, and accomplishes it's task with agility and grace.
EXACTLY. Others are saying "Yeah, but that cheetah can't FISH. That makes the bear so much BETTER." Me, I don't particularly like fish, so the bear offers me nothing, and the cheetah is faster.
The article rambles a bit, but it does hit the nail on the head when it comes to what drove the rapid increase in popularity of MySQL -- that it was small, fast, and easy to learn, mainly due to the fact that it did not include features that were, for many users, extraneous.
When I first went looking for a database to drive my website, my more knowledgeable friends and professional acquaintences all hawked postgresql. Since it was the default db that shipped with Red Hat, I figured I'd try it. I liked how robust it was, but I had a hell of a time finding support for it in the applications I wanted to run. I eventually switched to MySQL (which I had already used for various other projects) because it still remains easier to use, and because PostgreSQL is way more than I need.
The simple fact of the matter is that most users don't need ACID compliance, or transactions, or what have you. They need a storage system with sql interface, and that's it. Users who need more from a database would pass up MySQL for something better suited to their needs... but those users are in the minority. Everyone else's needs are simple -- MySQL sacrificed the less essential features for speed, simplicity, and ease of use. As a result, it was more attractive to people who were adequately served by its feature set.
And as MySQL has progressed, it has added in many of those features that higher-level databases like PostgreSQL offer, allowing us the option of using those features in the future.
The dual license is, in my view, a great business model. It provides the revenue stream open source projects need without sacrificing the freedom for those users who embrace the open source concept. As I understand it, it's free for use, and free to distribute under the terms of the GPL... but you have to pay if you want to use it in a non-GPL product. To me that's genius -- it forces a licensee to play by the same rules he sets, which seems only fair. I wouldn't be surprised to see more projects adopting similar models, nor would I mind.
Do you own a Mac? If so, then congratulations, you just lost any hope of your music format becoming the next big universal standard. The iPod is the only device that will play this format. iTunes is the only place you can buy it. And it's going to remain that way.
And before you go off on how Apple has been embracing true standards with OS X and various applications, remember that they only do that when they're fighting Microsoft's highly-funded proprietary alternative. The minute Apple is on top, they pull the same stunts as Microsoft.
Jobs is trying to keep everything in house because he wants Apple to be the all-in-one digital media system that people buy. But he's already sacrificed that goal by making the iPod and iTunes work on Windows. All he's managed to do is lock Mac users into Apple products the exact same way all those Mac users were afraid Microsoft was going to do to Windows users.
The profit margin on the iPod is LOW -- Apple needs all the sales it can get. And the music store was losing money until last week, when it reported a "small profit." An agreement with Real would have sold more iPods and lessened the impact of the loss Apple is taking on the music store. It would have also brought in revenue by selling the license. Were I a stockholder, I would demand a better explanation of Jobs's actions here.
I agree with everything said in the paper. In fact, I have been arguing those exact same 5 points for several years now.
Admittedly, in the last few years there have been real strides made for free/open-source software -- the GNOME project is the most vivid example, keeping true to its philosophy of simple, usable programs. I am particularly fond of applications like Epiphany, SoundJuicer, and Totem, all of which take a simple, user-oriented approach toward the tasks they perform.
As for advice, I would say that more projects simply need to take the advice the author of this article gives. Spending more time trying to avoid the five pitfalls outlined in this article is really all they need to do -- the real problem is that they're usually just not aware of these issues, or if they are, they don't care. If they want to make their software usable by others, they need to fix the problems.
The one thing I disagree on is the lack of documentation. I don't disagree that documentation for most free/open-source projects is poor, but were the program intuitively designed, it would be unnecessary. How many people read the documentation for a Mac or Windows system? Not many. I'd rather the developers spend time making the program usable than documenting something that is not.
However in the case of written correspondance, it is VERY clear that copyright stays with the person writing
This is not so. It is one thing if you send someone a manuscript that you have written. It is quite another if you have sent a communique addressing that person. In the latter case, the copyright is with the recipient. This is why jilted ex-girlfriends can publish the love letters they've received from famous persons, or why you are free to post to your website the contents of various flame emails you've received.
And yeah, it's not the same as "ownership" in the fullest sense of the term, but in this case, "ownership" extends to the ownership of copyrights. That is to say, you knew what I meant, so let's not split hairs.
According to the article, the officer used a screencap to record the chat rather than an actual log generated by the chat program. From the article:
The test seems to be whether the recording capability is part of the instant messaging software itself (in which case it may be legal to record) or whether it is an add-on, and therefore an unlawful recording.
So the Slashdot article is somewhat skewed. The chatlog isn't illegal. And I wouldn't be too upset, since the process the officer used involved video screen capture, as well as cutting and pasting, to get into a final document.
As far as chatlogs go, it's generally understood that written correspondence (mail, etc.) is owned by the one who receives it. I'd be surprised to see chatrooms fall outside that rule of thumb.
A real musician would be playing for the love of it and building human relationships with actual fans who would have no problem paying for fresh and scarce concerts, scarce physical merchandise, and CDs-as-a-patronage-thankyou.
And that would work out just fine, if we "real musicians" didn't need to, oh, I don't know... EAT.
Why are people so quick to judge the value of something on its availability? When you do that, you devalue not only the effort and energy gone into creating it in the first place, but any personal connection you have with the work, as well.
Seriously, could you be any more short-sighted? The scarcity of creative work is not artificial. It is all too real. The media on which that creativity resides (be it compact disc, paper, or data file) may no longer be scarce, true, but creating appealing, relevant, and/or lasting art is a difficult task, and it is insulting that you would insinuate otherwise -- Your argument is equivalent to saying, "Time to get a real job." I feel for the programmer who complains that everyone thinks his job is easy just because he sits at a computer all day.
Music Industry Bigwigs aside, artists do need to make a living from their work if they are to continue to devote their full efforts to it. And it is that devotion that provides the public with writing, music, and artwork that, as far as I'm concerned, makes life worth living. If you aren't willing to pay for good art, then you don't deserve good art. What you deserve is the rapidly declining, homogenized music industry you already have. If you think you deserve better, perhaps you should consider putting your money where your mouth is.
I don't support the RIAA in any way, as I find their actions in the legal arena contemptible. I buy used CDs so as not to directly line their pockets, and I advocate file sharing of RIAA-distributed music as civil protest against their legal tactics. But if/when the RIAA dies, will you really have enough respect for the remaining artists to actually pay for the work they do for you? Or will you continue to claim they should do it as a labor of love?
It's becoming clear that the main reason artists haven't rebelled against the RIAA is simply because they realize that the consumer public is even less likely to give them a fair shake. Without the "enforcement of artificial scarcity," a creator depends on the conscience of the public, on the audience's willingness to provide payment for services rendered despite a lack of enforcement. Would you be willing to place your livelihood into the hands of the consumer public on faith? After seeing how people rationalize NOT paying for music here, I would not.
Granted, enforcing artificial scarcity is not a workable long-term solution. But it is those who pay for the music they love who will be rewarded with... well, with music they love. Simple economics -- you get what you pay for. If you don't want to pay for good music, then sit back and enjoy Ms. Britney Spears with the rest of the less discriminating public. Because that narrow selection of music marketed to the lowest common denominator is the only thing that will survive off the pittance offered by those who don't value music enough to pay for it.
The bottom line is, real fans pay for the music they love. I do, as do others who want to see the works they love flourish and continue. Do you?
I haven't seen such a thing, but it's kind of a moot point, isn't it? I mean, GCC is generally the accepted compiler due to it being open-source. I doubt any closed-source compiler can make enough of a difference in performance to be worth the trade-off to most people. It certainly wouldn't even be worth investigating for a project like Fedora where the entire point is to use only open-source software.
>Also, the argument against the endorsement keys >being used for DRM is something like "nobody has a >system to running for signing and verifying them >today" which is supposed to convince us that such a >system will not exist when they are widely deployed >(note that as a feature they are 100% useless >without such a system.)
I was concerned about this, too, until I realized that THEY ALREADY HAVE LINUX RUNNING ON THE THING.
Think about it. Even if somebody does implement a DRM system in the future, they already have a Linux machine running with this chip without such a system, which makes the entire possibility of a future DRM system moot. How would they force you to use such a thing?
One guy trained to use a proprietary system sounds like it could eventually become more expensive than actual musicians. I would expect the demand for this sort of talent to far outweigh the supply. What happens when demand makes him more expensive than the original musicians?
Were I a theatre patron, I would be sorely disappointed that the show I paid good money for involved this. I think they've miscalculated what an audience demands. I think an audience *does* want a live orchestra if they're paying for a top-quality show. This fails to deliver in that regard, and devalues the performance accordingly. I guess ticket sales will show exactly how much.
How about YOU get real? I can't believe this drivel gets modded up as Insightful. Failure to appeal a court decision is NOT an admission of guilt -- heaven help us if it were! And the "conviction" was already on shaky ground due to public statements made by the judge that implied bias on his part. But Microsoft had no need to appeal the court decision when there was no real penalty. Why spend the money to fight a case when winning doesn't gain you anything except a bunch of whining linux zealots accusing you of rigging the courts?
If I so chose, I could do everything I wanted to do right now without using Microsoft products. I could install any decent Linux distro for simple day-to-day tasks, and if I really wanted to do creative work, there's always Apple. One of these options is cheaper than Microsoft, and the other is generally considered easier to use. And the both of them are causing so much of a dent in Microsoft's wallet that this is the first year MS has reported no profit increase. Doesn't sound to me like Microsoft has much of a hold on anything.
You put a lot of stock in the decision of a single judge on a lower court. How about you think for yourself rather than letting the government do it for you, hm?
Hm, good point. I can't deny their lack of business ethics, and their track record is less than stellar as of late, but they do put out good products on occasion. Remember, they're the ones doing U.S. distribution for most of Miyazaki's stuff these days.
I expect to see a bunch of disestablishmentarian Slashdotters bitch and moan because they hear the word Disney and make unfounded assumptions. Come on, the company that made Lilo & Stitch can't be all that bad.
Seriously, this is hardly bad news. Karey Kirkpatrick doesn't exactly have a horrible track record if you check IMDB. He scripted Tim Burton's "James and the Giant Peach," as well as "Chicken Run," both of which were required that he adapt an already-existing story from someone else's ideas into a screenplay. It can be reasonably safe to assume that he won't screw with Adams's vision.
As for the casting, it might not be top-notch, but there's something to be said about the fact that these are all relatively-unknown actors and actresses who have proven themselves in low-profile but respectable venues. You might remember Zooey Deschanel from Almost Famous, and MosDef from The Italian Job. The guy playing Arthur is pretty much unknown in the states but has experience in England, and Stephen Moore is even reprising his role. How is any of this bad?
I swear, for all the slavering fanboy rhetoric, nobody here seems to have learned anything from the book. The first rule is DON'T PANIC.
Myself, I'll wait until I hear something concrete about the production before I decide to write it off.
The message is not "netsend is hacking" it's "don't demonstrate our ignorance infront of students causing further loss of control".
I agree, but it should be noted that this sort of situation is exactly why those teachers have lost control. By doling out unreasonable punishment for actions that were never predefined as requiring punishment, they are abusing what control they do have. The common reaction of those who hear about it, of course, will be to just as recklessly remove more control from the teachers in this district to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I do not disagree that teachers are stuck between a rock and a hard place -- my girlfriend teaches high school and has found herself in some of the situations you have just described. The kids have no respect and fear nothing. But at the same time, one must point out that it is educators who make decisions like this who cause the ruckus that incites the public to remove that authority from them.
Oh, look, MPlayer is yet again accusing someone of violating the GPL. I seem to recall them being accused of violating the GPL themselves not too long ago.
Look, beside the rampant hypocrisy, the abusive attitude toward their own users, and the constant accusations of other people ripping them off, these guys also distribute the unauthorized Windows.dll files that make their player work. And they keep making accusations, even threats based on copyright law...
These guys are almost as bad as the RIAA. I would hate to see them with any financial or legal power, suing the rest of us into submission...
Slashdot Mirror
That depends. How does "Israel is such a pimple on the face of the earth" constitute a valid criticism of Israeli policy?
I think you're putting too much emphasis on U.S. policies and not enough on U.S. visibility. The people of the United States are seen as the haves by entire cultures of have-nots. The Middle East is not a resource-rich region, and its culture is not built on the same individualist foundations.
The U.S. is a terrorist target not because the terrorists are threatened by our freedom, or even our foreign policy, but because they are jealous of our wealth, which they believe is unjustly acquired through the hedonism our freedom allows. Our freedom and their religious zealotry do factor in, but jealousy is in the driver's seat. That's why Switzerland and Sweden don't factor in. They don't have nearly the wealth, visibility, or influence that the U.S. has.
How did this idiot get a karma bonus? He rarely says anything interesting, much less insightful, and now he's downright anti-Semitic.
This is a False Analogy. Palestinian terrorists target civilians, and the Israeli military does not.
Agreed. I haven't read anything this arrogant since I last went to mplayerhq.hu ...
What you're suggesting is what I have been calling "legislation via litigation" ever since the RIAA started this assault. Don't be worried that it might happen -- be worried that it already has. They have found the number one weakness in our civil justice system and they are exploiting it in a way that no other entity has.
Plenty of businesses have used the civil justice system to burn through their enemies' resources -- just take a look at how the RIAA took on MP3.com in a case that never did finish its run in court. Vivendi Universal refused to settle, MP3.com spent all their money on settlements with the other labels, they had no money left to appeal, and Vivendi Universal bought them up cheap... and dissolved them entirely not long afterwards.
But this is the first time a large entity like the RIAA has taken on such a large number of random civilian individuals, none of which have the resources or the experience to fight them in a fair match. In effect, they are using their vast monetary and legal resources to coerce the public into obeying their rules, not the laws set by our democratically-appointed leaders. Since these cases almost never go to court, there is no judicial review.
I would go so far as to suggest that this constitutes treason against the United States. The RIAA is attempting to usurp the power of the U.S. government by abusing the civil justice system. At the very least, the RIAA is taking advantage of their monetary and legal power in an unfair battle.
Write your congressmen, and tell them you want this onslaught stopped. Tell them how the RIAA is taking advantage of individuals, destroying families' economic well-being, and stealing the future from our children, if you have to. You never know, you might be surprised at the results.
You are not a consumer rights advocate. You are just someone trying to get out of paying for what you want. Every word you utter proves it.
Seriously, you're implying that "artist" and "someone trying to make a living" are mutually exclusive. What makes an artist any different from a programmer, or an architect, or even a bricklayer -- any one of those people could love their profession every bit as much as an artist. Why do you continue to argue that a musician doesn't have to be paid, since he makes music as a labor of love? By that logic, why should ANYONE who loves his job be paid?
You haven't understood anything?
If I go to watch a movie or buy a CD I want to enjoy it. It's so simple.
I do understand. I fully understand the concept of wanting to know the quality of your purchase before you actually spend the money. I have mentioned twice now in this thread that file-sharing is a great tool for this.
But that's not what you've been arguing, so don't try to twist your argument into some defense of consumer rights, and don't put words in my mouth. You've been arguing that artists lose nothing when you copy digital media, regardless of whether or not you keep what you like. And I am telling you that you are wrong. A lot more than $18 worth of time, money, and effort goes into the production of a CD, and at least some part of that time, money, and effort is wasted when you copy the CD without buying it. A lot more than $300 went into the production of Windows XP, and your assertion that nothing is lost when it is copied is fallacious at best. You can call me foolish or arrogant, but you have utterly failed to back up your argument.
I am not saying you have to buy things you don't like. I am saying that you have a moral obligation to pay for the things you download that you DO like, as well as an obligation to delete that which you deem not worth paying for.
The Lord of the Rings would not have made as much money as it did had so many of those people who downloaded it chosen to go ahead and pay for the DVDs, or for tickets to the theater showings. You legitimized your claim to downloading the movies by purchasing the DVDs. That's good. But would you have done the same were you able to download a perfect lossless copy of the DVD?
Wrong. Work and time are constant. Any joe who has had to punch a time card knows that it's not hard to measure work or time at all. Millions of employers around the globe manage to compensate people for the work they do, so don't try to skirt the issue by claiming you don't know the value.
I, like anyone else who works for a living, set a price for my time and labor. If you think that price is unfair, then you don't have to pay it -- but don't try to tell me you still deserve the fruits of my labor just because you think it's overpriced.
Since you say you are a musician, lets try out a simple experiment. I've got one of your songs here. And now I copied it 40 times. On 10 different computers. To 5 different people. How much did you 'lose'?
I've apparently lost 5 potential customers. Let's go with the standard iTunes rate of $0.99 per song. I've lost $4.95 in sales. Now, unlike the RIAA, I'm willing to lower that number by $0.99 for every one of those five people who listens to the song, decides he/she doesn't like it, and deletes it. But if even one of those people deems the song worth keeping around to listen to, I've lost money on the deal.
Nothing! That's right. Nothing. You don't even know it has happened........
So, what I don't know can't hurt me? I pity the person you marry.
Don't you see? The problem isn't that we won't have new music or that people will stop writing music. Maybe you will stop writing music, but then I don't think it would be a big loss because if that was the case. It's obviously nothing you think is fun if that was to happen....
You arrogant, short-sighted little prick. If I stop writing music it will be because I have to spend my time and energy trying to make a living to feed my family, not because I don't think it's fun. Fun doesn't pay the bills. Fun doesn't put a roof over my head. Fun doesn't put food on the table.
My labor and time are limited resources. I want to spend those resources on the things I love, as does anyone. But your argument gives people free rein to take my time and labor without giving anything in return! How am I supposed to eat? How am I supposed to live?!
Where does it say that musician should earn tons of cash or actually be required to earn anything on their music. They are artists. Makers of art. I know artists who has a ordinary job to get money and do their art on their spare time. There is no human right that says you are required to get paid to do what -YOU- want.
This is your response? The equivalent of "Get a real job?" Fine, let's put this into perspective.
Suppose the public agrees with you, that artists should work only for the love of the art, and don't deserve any monetary compensation since their work can be copied with little effort or cost. Suddenly, every artist becomes a hobbyist, rather than a professional, since there is no longer a market for professional artists and they all need to get "ordinary jobs." There is no reason for artists to study or educate themselves in art because it is a wasted effort. There is no reason for anyone to better themselves and hone their skills because it is a wasted effort.
If you think that the quality of professional entertainment is bad right now, then maybe you need to take a look at the vast majority of what's available on mp3.com (or rather, garage.com, since they seem to have purchased the mp3.com archives) and tell me if you really think that's better. There might be an occasional gem, but it's a needle hidden in a haystack of crap. That's what you get out of hobbyists. The simple truth still stands: you get what you pay for.
You are selfish. You have no respect for the work and time of others, and your argument proves it. When you watch a movie or listen to a song that you've downloaded, you try to justify not paying for it in any
How is this any different for digital content (music, movies, whatever)? Work is a resource. Time is a resource. Skill and experience has value, does it not? Speaking as a musician, I can state that these are certainly the primary requirements in the creation of music and other art.
No one will go home emptyhanded because they didn't get paid.
That's just flat-out wrong. That's EXACTLY what will happen -- the people involved in the creation of the media WILL go home empty-handed because they didn't get paid in your transaction. You might not have taken anything tangible, but you have certainly enjoyed the fruits of their labor. Don't fool yourself into thinking that your actions have no consequences.
No one will lose anything on it.
Also wrong. Those involved in the production of said media lose time, effort, and probably money as well. What's more, the time and effort (and possibly money, as anyone who has had to pay for an education knows) taken to develop the skills required to make said media is an indirect cost that remains unaccounted for in your scenario.
It's impossible for, lets say MS, to lose money on people copying WinXP opposed to someone making cars or mp3 players. Because, once you have made WinXP, it's there. The cost of making one or one billion copies of WinXP is the same.
The ability to mass produce a product with lower costs is the justification used to bring the price of that product down to a price lower than the cost to produce it. I'm pretty sure that it cost MS a lot more than $300 to produce that single copy of WinXP, just like it cost Apple a lot more than $500 to design and create an iPod, or a musician a lot more than $18 to produce a finished recording. Were you to take the design and coding costs into account, you would see that MS does indeed lose on the deal.
The problem is that you are not counting labor and time as resources. They are resources, perhaps the most significant resources at play in our economy, and for you to dismiss them so lightly is irresponsible at best, and at worst, morally and ethically repugnant -- it shows a complete lack of value and respect for the effort and time of others.
I am not saying that the legal action taken by organizations like the RIAA and MPAA is justified, and I am not saying that there is good enough reason to outlaw the creation and use of peer-to-peer software -- in fact, I advocate the use of peer-to-peer software as a form of civil protest against the music industry's legal war. I also consider it a great tool to try new things before you buy them, provided that after it's downloaded, you pay for anything deemed worthy of keeping.
But the argument that "no resources are lost" when digital media is copied effortlessly to new hands does not hold water. The attempt to rationalize the circumvention of the consumer's responsibility to pay for goods and services by using the absence of tangible asset loss as a defense is reprehensible. A true music fan understands this, and chooses to pay for what he loves.
Woo, awesome! Now we can use Linux to load a firmware update that lets us take advantage of new features for iTunes! All that's missing is the ability to run iTunes on Linux!
Bunch of rocket scientists, these guys.
EXACTLY. Others are saying "Yeah, but that cheetah can't FISH. That makes the bear so much BETTER." Me, I don't particularly like fish, so the bear offers me nothing, and the cheetah is faster.
The article rambles a bit, but it does hit the nail on the head when it comes to what drove the rapid increase in popularity of MySQL -- that it was small, fast, and easy to learn, mainly due to the fact that it did not include features that were, for many users, extraneous.
When I first went looking for a database to drive my website, my more knowledgeable friends and professional acquaintences all hawked postgresql. Since it was the default db that shipped with Red Hat, I figured I'd try it. I liked how robust it was, but I had a hell of a time finding support for it in the applications I wanted to run. I eventually switched to MySQL (which I had already used for various other projects) because it still remains easier to use, and because PostgreSQL is way more than I need.
The simple fact of the matter is that most users don't need ACID compliance, or transactions, or what have you. They need a storage system with sql interface, and that's it. Users who need more from a database would pass up MySQL for something better suited to their needs... but those users are in the minority. Everyone else's needs are simple -- MySQL sacrificed the less essential features for speed, simplicity, and ease of use. As a result, it was more attractive to people who were adequately served by its feature set.
And as MySQL has progressed, it has added in many of those features that higher-level databases like PostgreSQL offer, allowing us the option of using those features in the future.
The dual license is, in my view, a great business model. It provides the revenue stream open source projects need without sacrificing the freedom for those users who embrace the open source concept. As I understand it, it's free for use, and free to distribute under the terms of the GPL... but you have to pay if you want to use it in a non-GPL product. To me that's genius -- it forces a licensee to play by the same rules he sets, which seems only fair. I wouldn't be surprised to see more projects adopting similar models, nor would I mind.
Do you own a Mac? If so, then congratulations, you just lost any hope of your music format becoming the next big universal standard. The iPod is the only device that will play this format. iTunes is the only place you can buy it. And it's going to remain that way.
And before you go off on how Apple has been embracing true standards with OS X and various applications, remember that they only do that when they're fighting Microsoft's highly-funded proprietary alternative. The minute Apple is on top, they pull the same stunts as Microsoft.
Jobs is trying to keep everything in house because he wants Apple to be the all-in-one digital media system that people buy. But he's already sacrificed that goal by making the iPod and iTunes work on Windows. All he's managed to do is lock Mac users into Apple products the exact same way all those Mac users were afraid Microsoft was going to do to Windows users.
The profit margin on the iPod is LOW -- Apple needs all the sales it can get. And the music store was losing money until last week, when it reported a "small profit." An agreement with Real would have sold more iPods and lessened the impact of the loss Apple is taking on the music store. It would have also brought in revenue by selling the license. Were I a stockholder, I would demand a better explanation of Jobs's actions here.
I agree with everything said in the paper. In fact, I have been arguing those exact same 5 points for several years now.
Admittedly, in the last few years there have been real strides made for free/open-source software -- the GNOME project is the most vivid example, keeping true to its philosophy of simple, usable programs. I am particularly fond of applications like Epiphany, SoundJuicer, and Totem, all of which take a simple, user-oriented approach toward the tasks they perform.
As for advice, I would say that more projects simply need to take the advice the author of this article gives. Spending more time trying to avoid the five pitfalls outlined in this article is really all they need to do -- the real problem is that they're usually just not aware of these issues, or if they are, they don't care. If they want to make their software usable by others, they need to fix the problems.
The one thing I disagree on is the lack of documentation. I don't disagree that documentation for most free/open-source projects is poor, but were the program intuitively designed, it would be unnecessary. How many people read the documentation for a Mac or Windows system? Not many. I'd rather the developers spend time making the program usable than documenting something that is not.
This is not so. It is one thing if you send someone a manuscript that you have written. It is quite another if you have sent a communique addressing that person. In the latter case, the copyright is with the recipient. This is why jilted ex-girlfriends can publish the love letters they've received from famous persons, or why you are free to post to your website the contents of various flame emails you've received.
And yeah, it's not the same as "ownership" in the fullest sense of the term, but in this case, "ownership" extends to the ownership of copyrights. That is to say, you knew what I meant, so let's not split hairs.
The test seems to be whether the recording capability is part of the instant messaging software itself (in which case it may be legal to record) or whether it is an add-on, and therefore an unlawful recording.
So the Slashdot article is somewhat skewed. The chatlog isn't illegal. And I wouldn't be too upset, since the process the officer used involved video screen capture, as well as cutting and pasting, to get into a final document.
As far as chatlogs go, it's generally understood that written correspondence (mail, etc.) is owned by the one who receives it. I'd be surprised to see chatrooms fall outside that rule of thumb.
And that would work out just fine, if we "real musicians" didn't need to, oh, I don't know... EAT.
Why are people so quick to judge the value of something on its availability? When you do that, you devalue not only the effort and energy gone into creating it in the first place, but any personal connection you have with the work, as well.
Seriously, could you be any more short-sighted? The scarcity of creative work is not artificial. It is all too real. The media on which that creativity resides (be it compact disc, paper, or data file) may no longer be scarce, true, but creating appealing, relevant, and/or lasting art is a difficult task, and it is insulting that you would insinuate otherwise -- Your argument is equivalent to saying, "Time to get a real job." I feel for the programmer who complains that everyone thinks his job is easy just because he sits at a computer all day.
Music Industry Bigwigs aside, artists do need to make a living from their work if they are to continue to devote their full efforts to it. And it is that devotion that provides the public with writing, music, and artwork that, as far as I'm concerned, makes life worth living. If you aren't willing to pay for good art, then you don't deserve good art. What you deserve is the rapidly declining, homogenized music industry you already have. If you think you deserve better, perhaps you should consider putting your money where your mouth is.
I don't support the RIAA in any way, as I find their actions in the legal arena contemptible. I buy used CDs so as not to directly line their pockets, and I advocate file sharing of RIAA-distributed music as civil protest against their legal tactics. But if/when the RIAA dies, will you really have enough respect for the remaining artists to actually pay for the work they do for you? Or will you continue to claim they should do it as a labor of love?
It's becoming clear that the main reason artists haven't rebelled against the RIAA is simply because they realize that the consumer public is even less likely to give them a fair shake. Without the "enforcement of artificial scarcity," a creator depends on the conscience of the public, on the audience's willingness to provide payment for services rendered despite a lack of enforcement. Would you be willing to place your livelihood into the hands of the consumer public on faith? After seeing how people rationalize NOT paying for music here, I would not.
Granted, enforcing artificial scarcity is not a workable long-term solution. But it is those who pay for the music they love who will be rewarded with... well, with music they love. Simple economics -- you get what you pay for. If you don't want to pay for good music, then sit back and enjoy Ms. Britney Spears with the rest of the less discriminating public. Because that narrow selection of music marketed to the lowest common denominator is the only thing that will survive off the pittance offered by those who don't value music enough to pay for it.
The bottom line is, real fans pay for the music they love. I do, as do others who want to see the works they love flourish and continue. Do you?
I haven't seen such a thing, but it's kind of a moot point, isn't it? I mean, GCC is generally the accepted compiler due to it being open-source. I doubt any closed-source compiler can make enough of a difference in performance to be worth the trade-off to most people. It certainly wouldn't even be worth investigating for a project like Fedora where the entire point is to use only open-source software.
>Also, the argument against the endorsement keys
>being used for DRM is something like "nobody has a
>system to running for signing and verifying them
>today" which is supposed to convince us that such a
>system will not exist when they are widely deployed
>(note that as a feature they are 100% useless
>without such a system.)
I was concerned about this, too, until I realized that THEY ALREADY HAVE LINUX RUNNING ON THE THING.
Think about it. Even if somebody does implement a DRM system in the future, they already have a Linux machine running with this chip without such a system, which makes the entire possibility of a future DRM system moot. How would they force you to use such a thing?
One guy trained to use a proprietary system sounds like it could eventually become more expensive than actual musicians. I would expect the demand for this sort of talent to far outweigh the supply. What happens when demand makes him more expensive than the original musicians?
Were I a theatre patron, I would be sorely disappointed that the show I paid good money for involved this. I think they've miscalculated what an audience demands. I think an audience *does* want a live orchestra if they're paying for a top-quality show. This fails to deliver in that regard, and devalues the performance accordingly. I guess ticket sales will show exactly how much.
How about YOU get real? I can't believe this drivel gets modded up as Insightful. Failure to appeal a court decision is NOT an admission of guilt -- heaven help us if it were! And the "conviction" was already on shaky ground due to public statements made by the judge that implied bias on his part. But Microsoft had no need to appeal the court decision when there was no real penalty. Why spend the money to fight a case when winning doesn't gain you anything except a bunch of whining linux zealots accusing you of rigging the courts?
If I so chose, I could do everything I wanted to do right now without using Microsoft products. I could install any decent Linux distro for simple day-to-day tasks, and if I really wanted to do creative work, there's always Apple. One of these options is cheaper than Microsoft, and the other is generally considered easier to use. And the both of them are causing so much of a dent in Microsoft's wallet that this is the first year MS has reported no profit increase. Doesn't sound to me like Microsoft has much of a hold on anything.
You put a lot of stock in the decision of a single judge on a lower court. How about you think for yourself rather than letting the government do it for you, hm?
Hm, good point. I can't deny their lack of business ethics, and their track record is less than stellar as of late, but they do put out good products on occasion. Remember, they're the ones doing U.S. distribution for most of Miyazaki's stuff these days.
BTW, Doc, your sig rules.
But it's Disney, so what do you expect?
I expect to see a bunch of disestablishmentarian Slashdotters bitch and moan because they hear the word Disney and make unfounded assumptions. Come on, the company that made Lilo & Stitch can't be all that bad.
Seriously, this is hardly bad news. Karey Kirkpatrick doesn't exactly have a horrible track record if you check IMDB. He scripted Tim Burton's "James and the Giant Peach," as well as "Chicken Run," both of which were required that he adapt an already-existing story from someone else's ideas into a screenplay. It can be reasonably safe to assume that he won't screw with Adams's vision.
As for the casting, it might not be top-notch, but there's something to be said about the fact that these are all relatively-unknown actors and actresses who have proven themselves in low-profile but respectable venues. You might remember Zooey Deschanel from Almost Famous, and MosDef from The Italian Job. The guy playing Arthur is pretty much unknown in the states but has experience in England, and Stephen Moore is even reprising his role. How is any of this bad?
I swear, for all the slavering fanboy rhetoric, nobody here seems to have learned anything from the book. The first rule is DON'T PANIC.
Myself, I'll wait until I hear something concrete about the production before I decide to write it off.
Those who live by the sword die by the sword. 'Nuff said.
We should be so lucky, eh?
The message is not "netsend is hacking" it's "don't demonstrate our ignorance infront of students causing further loss of control".
I agree, but it should be noted that this sort of situation is exactly why those teachers have lost control. By doling out unreasonable punishment for actions that were never predefined as requiring punishment, they are abusing what control they do have. The common reaction of those who hear about it, of course, will be to just as recklessly remove more control from the teachers in this district to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I do not disagree that teachers are stuck between a rock and a hard place -- my girlfriend teaches high school and has found herself in some of the situations you have just described. The kids have no respect and fear nothing. But at the same time, one must point out that it is educators who make decisions like this who cause the ruckus that incites the public to remove that authority from them.
Oh, look, MPlayer is yet again accusing someone of violating the GPL. I seem to recall them being accused of violating the GPL themselves not too long ago.
.dll files that make their player work. And they keep making accusations, even threats based on copyright law...
Look, beside the rampant hypocrisy, the abusive attitude toward their own users, and the constant accusations of other people ripping them off, these guys also distribute the unauthorized Windows
These guys are almost as bad as the RIAA. I would hate to see them with any financial or legal power, suing the rest of us into submission...