You are confusing the utilitarian aspect of someone (i.e., the government) protecting original ideas versus a morally justified right to having that idea protected.
I like how you implied I don't believe in private property because I believe scarcity is the main factor in property rights--I argued that anything scarce should be considered to be property. Anything that cannot be informationally copied. That's the difference between stealing and transcribing a book.
A more easy way to look at it is the level of arbitrariness involved in protection of this "property." Intellectual property rights are entirely arbitrary--the number of years you have a right to it, what IS and ISN'T considered fair use, those are all completely arbitrary and vary from nation to nation. You cannot merely know without being told beforehand what your intellectual property "rights" are. With scarce property, such as a chair or so on, your rights are pretty intuitive and more basic.
There's a reason why things are like this, and that's because no one would bother writing professional-quality software if they didn't get paid enough for it. Think all you want about how immaterial things should be free, but if all information somehow had to be free then you wouldn't have anymore professional software around, you'd be stuck with crap like GIMP or Blender and would never again see anything like Photoshop or 3DS Max. There's thousands of man-hours of work that go into each such commercial program, man-hours from highly qualified and well-paid people. Someone has to pay for that work, cause if no one does then these people won't touch that ever again and look for a real job that pays.
Again, that is a utilitarian argument and not a moral one. Or more accurately, that is an argument out of convenience and not out of whether it's right or wrong, and you have not established why it's wrong to copy software, merely that negative consequences will result (and I do not deny that).
That's the stupidest fucking argument on the topic I've ever heard. If everything comes down to just a bunch of 1s and 0s, then why don't you just create them as you need them? Oh, what's that? Creating what you want is non-trivial and the only way to create that is to do it the way it's currently done, which costs money? By the way, not believing in private property is communism. It's like, someone painstakingly creates something and then some wanker like you comes up and goes "this is now property of the people, thank you".
I'm not saying people are owed or deserve that software for free, merely that copying software is not unethical because information is not [i]materially scarce[/i] (your usage of scarcity was an equivocation).
Saying that because thinking up or implementing a good idea grants you magical exclusive rights to it is ridiculous. It is like arguing that being the first to think of and implement a new scientific experimental paradigm grants you the exclusive right to that experimental paradigm. It's ridiculous.
I would say that you do deserve to get paid for your software, but given your hysterical yet amusing attitude I would be interested in knowing what program you made so I can torrent it:) Who knows... maybe I'll start really soon:)
Your taking a flower from the garden does not apply because the flower is a scarce and not-producible. If you could make a copy of that flower, then you would have an analogous argument.
Because just because you put effort into it doesn't guarantee you can make a profit off of it, even if you intend to do so. Houses are scarce resources; information is reproducible and not scarce. It's not that you don't "deserve" compensation or that it "should" be free, it's that simply that technology is changing everything. Because I put effort into mowing my lawn, does not mean I should be able to charge people for looking at it or making copies of a photograph of it. It's ludicrous to say that you own a particular configuration of 1s and 0s, just as it would be ludicrous to say you own a particular wavelength on the electromagnetic spectrum or particular frequency of sound. Same going with those ridiculous patents on genes/genetic codes.
If houses could be copied and replicated through future technology then I will say the same thing in that case as well.
Wow, I get modded flamebait when the only current-gen console I own IS the Wii? What's with the Nintendo fanboys on slashdot? I fully stand by my criticism of the Wii. You have to be pretty sad to mod an honest criticism of a video game console down because you take it emotionally....
Saying that they have a complete monopoly on the xbox live network is like saying netflix has a monopoly on the netflix system or valve has a network on Steam. Yes, Valve will also ban you if you cheat on Steam games. Too bad, shouldn't cheat. Blizzard will ban you from WoW and you will lose your character if you cheat. Well, duh. Yes, you can't access your stuff after you get banned. You agreed to that, too bad. Go buy a PS3 or a Wii if you're that bothered by this.
If slashdot banned you for some reason it isn't a legitimate complaint to say they can't because they have a monopoly on themselves and you've lost all your posting and whatever other status you have.
Wiimote rip-off? Maybe a wii-mote killer, actually. Especially since Nintendo has hardly been using the wiimote to its full potential and most gaming on the wii is basically shovelware.
I applaud this move heartily and am glad to see America finally catch up with the rest of the developed, Western world. Forcing citizens to enter patronize particular corporate entities IS the way forward, and I'm glad Obama and the House can see that. Once the citizen realizes he has to give up a large portion of his ability to make selfish INDIVIDUAL choices and act in accordance with that of the leaders of his or her nations, can they develop into a more moral, self-actualized human being. I think this is also an indication that there is a shift towards America having less of this "me, me, me!" attitude and the country is starting to realize that freedom isn't individual greed, but something greater than they are--sacrifice and adherence to ones' governing body. A more moral human being is one that follows the edicts of the body that rules it. A good dog, after all, is not one that jumps the fence and goes where it pleases but one that runs to its master with leash in its mouth, wagging its tail.
Let's not paint the have-nots as the good guys, cuz most of 'em would do it too. And not all the haves are conspirators, either.
It's a bunch of rats fighting over scraps, and some of the rats have convinced the rest that they deserve reverence and admiration and are just looking out for our best interests.
And, you haven't established that divine right or arm wrestling confers any less a moral or "justified" status (from an individual persective) than an election does. The majority could well elect another Stalin and it wouldn't mean jack shit over whether he's a justified ruler or not, because there's no such thing.
Is it really so hard to read the last sentence I wrote? You keep on looking for "better" or "best" solutions, when there isn't even anything resembling an ideal solution available.
As an individual, you have no recourse. You're at the mercy of the rest of the world. What you do with that knowledge is your business.
When someone says flag burning is illegal, they are referring to burning flags in a particular context, so your argument there is tangential to the point being made here.
You're doing exactly what I talked about by listing freedoms you perceive the USA not to have when I could do the same here. Not to mention you equivocate on "freedom"--the freedom you refer to in healthcare is a totally different type of freedom compared to, say, "freedom of speech." In fact, given that Canadian healthcare participation is compulsory (at least paying for it is via taxes) I'd have to argue that it's less free (not that I'm endorsing the system that has evolved in the United States--but "freedom" it ain't, as freedom doesn't mean "superior" or "less expensive.")
I could play the same game and point to America having a greater freedom towards ownership of means of self-defense, freedom of speech (which we excel at especially compared to European countries) so on and so forth. But I have a feeling that those individual freedoms, in your view, probably go "too far" or are bad freedoms.
The scariest thing about countries that aren't USA is that they point to a couple of facts that appease them politically and cheer themselves on. It's scary when it seems like "NOT AMERICA, WHEW!" is what you think an acceptable level of "freedom" is.
These meetings are held in secret. Now, one could understand countries meeting secretly for reasons of war, in case possible plans fell into enemy hands. But this isn't war against nations.
This is subjugation of the citizens. These meetings are secret simply so the populace don't find out what's being planned--for the same reason the American South made teaching slaves how to read illegal--the information is too much of a threat to let out. The whole myth of government for the people, by the people, is just that, a myth, a cultural fable told to instill flag-waving patriotism in the citizenry. Nothing shuts up dissent faster than "my country, love it or leave it" and the nationalistic fervor that accompanies it.
PEOPLE DO NOT REALLY CONTROL THEIR GOVERNMENTS, AND THE STRUCTURE OF LARGE-SCALE DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS NATURALLY LENDS ITSELF TO OLIGARCHY. Democracy is like communism--SUPPOSEDLY "good in theory" but it doesn't actually work. Whenever someone says "we just need more education!" or some other reform, they are trying to save democracy and insist it can run as planned just like the communists that claim that widespread communism can exist without degenerating into USSR-style totalitarianism. The only difference is is communism is generally someone else's myth and not your own, so you can't see it.
What works? Nothing works. You're on your own, buddy, you're gonna have boots stomping you no matter what. Such is life...
Oh please. It's easy to blame America because we're the strongest world power (and I'm not bragging about this at all, believe me). If Canada or anywhere else took the USA's place the roles here would be reversed. If you think that sort of patriotism is exclusive to the USA anyway you're severely deluded.
Pulling a completely random example from Wikipedia out of my ass--it's illegal, in Finland, to burn their flag, yet Americans still have that right (in most places) despite the protestations of many politicians and red necks here. And yet Finland (and all you other supposedly better nations) is supposed to be so progressive and free? You say, "oh, yeah, that's one of the laws they'll just ignore" but given how much patriotism I see out of Europeans here resembling a more sophisticated "Yee-haw Bob, 'MERICA!" I'm not convinced that their officers won't arrest them for it. I'm not convinced that Europe is any better than the USA. And Germany? Can barely even have red blood in their video games, and god forbid there's dismemberment. I don't see that one going ignored...! If I had time I could probably find plenty of examples.
Believe me, I'm no flag waving patriot--I'd rather burn the flag than wave it--but I'm sick of the "MY grass IS greener!" mentality people have regardless of where they are from. Just because Canada (or any other nation, or America compared to another nation) might be better on whatever issues currently making the rounds through the world medias these days doesn't make it overall more free.
The OP's post has obvious logistical problems, but you have to realize that even the law is an invention of convenience. What good is the law if the laws is bad or tyrannical? If you ever suggest that the law be followed simply for its "democratic" status or because someone said so, then it becomes moral or justice that someone be unfairly tortured or even killed because the "law" says so.
The horrifying truth is that there is no good or evil or any sort of justice, it is an invention within your head and no external entity has some divine mandate or authority over you. The law only gets its validation if you think it's valid. There are no gods to set up rules--and even then, what if there were?--and kings and large crowds don't solve the problem either.
So yes, what is the use of a law that is injust? How high does the body count need to be before "rule of law" and "justice" no longer outweigh your sense of morality?
Hacked hardware is nothing without a user. Charging him for selling hacked hardware is like charging a handgun manufacturer with murder or assuming all P2P traffic is pirated, or even worse, assuming all copyrighted stuff being shared isn't being shared legitimately (and we all know the law is designed for assuming traditional notions of copyright and not GPL-style copyright).
Many artists sell CDs through their own labels on their websites. There's no need to even bring the RIAA into the equation. Piracy hurts these guys too.
No, you do have a democracy, you just don't like the choices because the majority isn't voting what you like in.
Instead of being all idyllic over our cultural myth over how great and wonderful "democracy" is, maybe you should question this whole "democracy" thing. Maybe relying on other people for freedom isn't a very good path to freedom at all? Maybe you'll never be free.
And you won't be, of course. Society doesn't want you to be really free because it's not in peoples' interests. I mean, hell, if you could control other people, take their things, make them do shit for you, well, a lot of people would and convince themselves they're owed or it's "right." Maybe you do on some level and don't realize it. But you're just one individual, and when it's you vs. the world, well, I don't need to tell you who is gonna win.
Keep your head down, stay below radar, do all your nasty shit behind closed doors with trusted people and for the sake of your sanity try to forget what the rest of the world is like, once in awhile.
Not like the rest, the others. Everyone around me. I was at odds with my society and knew it early since birth. Unlike them, I did not "Think Different!"--the mantra of the Macs around me, the phrase on all the billboards in the city that served as a reminder to its citizenry. Sameness pervaded the essence of my being and no amount of self-conditioning I did could change that. Eventually, I gave up and isolated myself emotionally from society.
I gaze at the faces going by, the white earphones contrasting their black turtlenecks, connecting their ears to their pockets, their blank faces engrossed in hip Indie rock music and various garage bands. I envied them for their perfection against my flaws and my compulsive nature to expand, to burden my life with troubles instead of remaining, like them, simple and easy to deal with. The grandest of virtues, simplicity... the philosophy by our loyal benefactor Steve Jobs, who descended from the heavens, creating the Earth, the iron, the wind and the rain. Steve Jobs, who defined the parameters of existence, the one who set about the patterns of reality, the constants, the variables. He who made gravity, electromagnetic energy, and shaped atomic structures and brought forth motion. From these things, he crafted the elements, processed them, refined them, and from these things engineered Apple products through the purity of his mind. Each Apple product was individually crafted by his own hands with the programming code used to run each device having being compiled in his brain and uploaded to each device telepathically, breathing life and perfection into each and every unit.
Except, it seems, for me, for I was not among the many. I was a PC. They were Macs. I've always been a cold, stiff person. I got by, disguising myself by keeping my non-Ipod music player safely out of sight, which I use because of my depraved nature demanding more functionality than the simple and easy-to-use Ipods have to offer.. In the safety of my own home, behind locked doors, I ran a Forbidden, a contraband computer from more depraved, earlier days that was not given the love and blessing of being birthed by Steve Jobs. I dual booted, out of the great sin of curiosity-- curiosity, a shameful value of a PC, as curiosity has no place where simplicity matters most--using two of the great unutterable blasphemies-- something called "Windows Vista" and something else called "Linux." Although, as I mentioned before, although my tendency to be a PC and towards conformity has always been inherent to me, I was truly transformed when I found these old things in a hidden cache of computer parts predating The Purging. Perhaps the greatest sin of all, the single evil that, if discovered, would damn me forever, was the fact that my mouse had more than one button.
As I walk among the Macs on the streets, passing the Starbuckses as I went along, I wondered how it all came to this. I glanced at The Holy Marks on the foreheads as the people wandered down the streets, the Bitten Apple tattooed on all our of us at birth, and wondered if, perhaps, there could be something more to life. But again, this was a PC's thought, and not, like everyone elses', a Mac's. We were to hold ourselves to the philosophy of Steve Jobs--so as his products were designed for idiots, so too were we to be idiots. But I was not a Mac--I was not an idiot. I was simply too complicated to be a worthwhile person.
Nature called. I found a nearby public iPoo--squeaky clean and sparkly white, things weren't all bad--and let myself go, expelling the waste that had accumulated inside me. After relieving myself and committing the overly-complicated and thus illegal act of wiping my ass (I did not flush as iPoos, designed to be idiot-proof, did not flush) I left and once again wandered the streets aimlessly, hoping to find some meaning in a world where I simply did not belong, a world where if my true nature was discovered, I would be endlessly persecuted by smug, self-righteous sons of bitches.
Oh, and I never said music can't happen. I merely said that it does hurt artists. Slashdotters keep on emphasizing the perceived "good" for free music but don't want to emphasis how it does hurt artists (and it does). Again, the RIAA's points are overblown but that doesn't make them necessarily completely wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
You are confusing the utilitarian aspect of someone (i.e., the government) protecting original ideas versus a morally justified right to having that idea protected.
I like how you implied I don't believe in private property because I believe scarcity is the main factor in property rights--I argued that anything scarce should be considered to be property. Anything that cannot be informationally copied. That's the difference between stealing and transcribing a book.
A more easy way to look at it is the level of arbitrariness involved in protection of this "property." Intellectual property rights are entirely arbitrary--the number of years you have a right to it, what IS and ISN'T considered fair use, those are all completely arbitrary and vary from nation to nation. You cannot merely know without being told beforehand what your intellectual property "rights" are. With scarce property, such as a chair or so on, your rights are pretty intuitive and more basic.
There's a reason why things are like this, and that's because no one would bother writing professional-quality software if they didn't get paid enough for it. Think all you want about how immaterial things should be free, but if all information somehow had to be free then you wouldn't have anymore professional software around, you'd be stuck with crap like GIMP or Blender and would never again see anything like Photoshop or 3DS Max. There's thousands of man-hours of work that go into each such commercial program, man-hours from highly qualified and well-paid people. Someone has to pay for that work, cause if no one does then these people won't touch that ever again and look for a real job that pays.
Again, that is a utilitarian argument and not a moral one. Or more accurately, that is an argument out of convenience and not out of whether it's right or wrong, and you have not established why it's wrong to copy software, merely that negative consequences will result (and I do not deny that).
That's the stupidest fucking argument on the topic I've ever heard. If everything comes down to just a bunch of 1s and 0s, then why don't you just create them as you need them? Oh, what's that? Creating what you want is non-trivial and the only way to create that is to do it the way it's currently done, which costs money? By the way, not believing in private property is communism. It's like, someone painstakingly creates something and then some wanker like you comes up and goes "this is now property of the people, thank you".
I'm not saying people are owed or deserve that software for free, merely that copying software is not unethical because information is not [i]materially scarce[/i] (your usage of scarcity was an equivocation).
Saying that because thinking up or implementing a good idea grants you magical exclusive rights to it is ridiculous. It is like arguing that being the first to think of and implement a new scientific experimental paradigm grants you the exclusive right to that experimental paradigm. It's ridiculous.
I would say that you do deserve to get paid for your software, but given your hysterical yet amusing attitude I would be interested in knowing what program you made so I can torrent it :) Who knows... maybe I'll start really soon :)
Your taking a flower from the garden does not apply because the flower is a scarce and not-producible. If you could make a copy of that flower, then you would have an analogous argument.
Because just because you put effort into it doesn't guarantee you can make a profit off of it, even if you intend to do so. Houses are scarce resources; information is reproducible and not scarce. It's not that you don't "deserve" compensation or that it "should" be free, it's that simply that technology is changing everything. Because I put effort into mowing my lawn, does not mean I should be able to charge people for looking at it or making copies of a photograph of it. It's ludicrous to say that you own a particular configuration of 1s and 0s, just as it would be ludicrous to say you own a particular wavelength on the electromagnetic spectrum or particular frequency of sound. Same going with those ridiculous patents on genes/genetic codes.
If houses could be copied and replicated through future technology then I will say the same thing in that case as well.
Proud of your blood money?
Wow, I get modded flamebait when the only current-gen console I own IS the Wii? What's with the Nintendo fanboys on slashdot? I fully stand by my criticism of the Wii. You have to be pretty sad to mod an honest criticism of a video game console down because you take it emotionally....
Saying that they have a complete monopoly on the xbox live network is like saying netflix has a monopoly on the netflix system or valve has a network on Steam. Yes, Valve will also ban you if you cheat on Steam games. Too bad, shouldn't cheat. Blizzard will ban you from WoW and you will lose your character if you cheat. Well, duh. Yes, you can't access your stuff after you get banned. You agreed to that, too bad. Go buy a PS3 or a Wii if you're that bothered by this.
If slashdot banned you for some reason it isn't a legitimate complaint to say they can't because they have a monopoly on themselves and you've lost all your posting and whatever other status you have.
Wiimote rip-off? Maybe a wii-mote killer, actually. Especially since Nintendo has hardly been using the wiimote to its full potential and most gaming on the wii is basically shovelware.
Oh, cut the "think of the children" crap, even 12 year olds say far worse things.
I applaud this move heartily and am glad to see America finally catch up with the rest of the developed, Western world. Forcing citizens to enter patronize particular corporate entities IS the way forward, and I'm glad Obama and the House can see that. Once the citizen realizes he has to give up a large portion of his ability to make selfish INDIVIDUAL choices and act in accordance with that of the leaders of his or her nations, can they develop into a more moral, self-actualized human being. I think this is also an indication that there is a shift towards America having less of this "me, me, me!" attitude and the country is starting to realize that freedom isn't individual greed, but something greater than they are--sacrifice and adherence to ones' governing body. A more moral human being is one that follows the edicts of the body that rules it. A good dog, after all, is not one that jumps the fence and goes where it pleases but one that runs to its master with leash in its mouth, wagging its tail.
That applies to elected positions as well. It's not that bureaucrats suck, it's that everyone sucks.
Modern China ain't communist by any real meaning of the word.
Let's not paint the have-nots as the good guys, cuz most of 'em would do it too. And not all the haves are conspirators, either.
It's a bunch of rats fighting over scraps, and some of the rats have convinced the rest that they deserve reverence and admiration and are just looking out for our best interests.
And, you haven't established that divine right or arm wrestling confers any less a moral or "justified" status (from an individual persective) than an election does. The majority could well elect another Stalin and it wouldn't mean jack shit over whether he's a justified ruler or not, because there's no such thing.
Is it really so hard to read the last sentence I wrote? You keep on looking for "better" or "best" solutions, when there isn't even anything resembling an ideal solution available.
As an individual, you have no recourse. You're at the mercy of the rest of the world. What you do with that knowledge is your business.
When someone says flag burning is illegal, they are referring to burning flags in a particular context, so your argument there is tangential to the point being made here.
You're doing exactly what I talked about by listing freedoms you perceive the USA not to have when I could do the same here. Not to mention you equivocate on "freedom"--the freedom you refer to in healthcare is a totally different type of freedom compared to, say, "freedom of speech." In fact, given that Canadian healthcare participation is compulsory (at least paying for it is via taxes) I'd have to argue that it's less free (not that I'm endorsing the system that has evolved in the United States--but "freedom" it ain't, as freedom doesn't mean "superior" or "less expensive.")
I could play the same game and point to America having a greater freedom towards ownership of means of self-defense, freedom of speech (which we excel at especially compared to European countries) so on and so forth. But I have a feeling that those individual freedoms, in your view, probably go "too far" or are bad freedoms.
The scariest thing about countries that aren't USA is that they point to a couple of facts that appease them politically and cheer themselves on. It's scary when it seems like "NOT AMERICA, WHEW!" is what you think an acceptable level of "freedom" is.
These meetings are held in secret. Now, one could understand countries meeting secretly for reasons of war, in case possible plans fell into enemy hands. But this isn't war against nations.
This is subjugation of the citizens. These meetings are secret simply so the populace don't find out what's being planned--for the same reason the American South made teaching slaves how to read illegal--the information is too much of a threat to let out. The whole myth of government for the people, by the people, is just that, a myth, a cultural fable told to instill flag-waving patriotism in the citizenry. Nothing shuts up dissent faster than "my country, love it or leave it" and the nationalistic fervor that accompanies it.
PEOPLE DO NOT REALLY CONTROL THEIR GOVERNMENTS, AND THE STRUCTURE OF LARGE-SCALE DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS NATURALLY LENDS ITSELF TO OLIGARCHY. Democracy is like communism--SUPPOSEDLY "good in theory" but it doesn't actually work. Whenever someone says "we just need more education!" or some other reform, they are trying to save democracy and insist it can run as planned just like the communists that claim that widespread communism can exist without degenerating into USSR-style totalitarianism. The only difference is is communism is generally someone else's myth and not your own, so you can't see it.
What works? Nothing works. You're on your own, buddy, you're gonna have boots stomping you no matter what. Such is life...
Oh please. It's easy to blame America because we're the strongest world power (and I'm not bragging about this at all, believe me). If Canada or anywhere else took the USA's place the roles here would be reversed. If you think that sort of patriotism is exclusive to the USA anyway you're severely deluded.
Pulling a completely random example from Wikipedia out of my ass--it's illegal, in Finland, to burn their flag, yet Americans still have that right (in most places) despite the protestations of many politicians and red necks here. And yet Finland (and all you other supposedly better nations) is supposed to be so progressive and free? You say, "oh, yeah, that's one of the laws they'll just ignore" but given how much patriotism I see out of Europeans here resembling a more sophisticated "Yee-haw Bob, 'MERICA!" I'm not convinced that their officers won't arrest them for it. I'm not convinced that Europe is any better than the USA. And Germany? Can barely even have red blood in their video games, and god forbid there's dismemberment. I don't see that one going ignored...! If I had time I could probably find plenty of examples.
Believe me, I'm no flag waving patriot--I'd rather burn the flag than wave it--but I'm sick of the "MY grass IS greener!" mentality people have regardless of where they are from. Just because Canada (or any other nation, or America compared to another nation) might be better on whatever issues currently making the rounds through the world medias these days doesn't make it overall more free.
The OP's post has obvious logistical problems, but you have to realize that even the law is an invention of convenience. What good is the law if the laws is bad or tyrannical? If you ever suggest that the law be followed simply for its "democratic" status or because someone said so, then it becomes moral or justice that someone be unfairly tortured or even killed because the "law" says so.
The horrifying truth is that there is no good or evil or any sort of justice, it is an invention within your head and no external entity has some divine mandate or authority over you. The law only gets its validation if you think it's valid. There are no gods to set up rules--and even then, what if there were?--and kings and large crowds don't solve the problem either.
So yes, what is the use of a law that is injust? How high does the body count need to be before "rule of law" and "justice" no longer outweigh your sense of morality?
Hacked hardware is nothing without a user. Charging him for selling hacked hardware is like charging a handgun manufacturer with murder or assuming all P2P traffic is pirated, or even worse, assuming all copyrighted stuff being shared isn't being shared legitimately (and we all know the law is designed for assuming traditional notions of copyright and not GPL-style copyright).
Please send me your newsletter.
Hehe, just sign up for the White House's press releases!
Many artists sell CDs through their own labels on their websites. There's no need to even bring the RIAA into the equation. Piracy hurts these guys too.
No, you do have a democracy, you just don't like the choices because the majority isn't voting what you like in.
Instead of being all idyllic over our cultural myth over how great and wonderful "democracy" is, maybe you should question this whole "democracy" thing. Maybe relying on other people for freedom isn't a very good path to freedom at all? Maybe you'll never be free.
And you won't be, of course. Society doesn't want you to be really free because it's not in peoples' interests. I mean, hell, if you could control other people, take their things, make them do shit for you, well, a lot of people would and convince themselves they're owed or it's "right." Maybe you do on some level and don't realize it. But you're just one individual, and when it's you vs. the world, well, I don't need to tell you who is gonna win.
Keep your head down, stay below radar, do all your nasty shit behind closed doors with trusted people and for the sake of your sanity try to forget what the rest of the world is like, once in awhile.
We'll find out at some point in the future. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and in 20 years I'll have a robot butler using an x86 processor.
Doubtful, given that the human brain's cognitive functions pretty much require parallel processing.
I've always been a PC at heart.
Not like the rest, the others. Everyone around me. I was at odds with my society and knew it early since birth. Unlike them, I did not "Think Different!"--the mantra of the Macs around me, the phrase on all the billboards in the city that served as a reminder to its citizenry. Sameness pervaded the essence of my being and no amount of self-conditioning I did could change that. Eventually, I gave up and isolated myself emotionally from society.
I gaze at the faces going by, the white earphones contrasting their black turtlenecks, connecting their ears to their pockets, their blank faces engrossed in hip Indie rock music and various garage bands. I envied them for their perfection against my flaws and my compulsive nature to expand, to burden my life with troubles instead of remaining, like them, simple and easy to deal with. The grandest of virtues, simplicity... the philosophy by our loyal benefactor Steve Jobs, who descended from the heavens, creating the Earth, the iron, the wind and the rain. Steve Jobs, who defined the parameters of existence, the one who set about the patterns of reality, the constants, the variables. He who made gravity, electromagnetic energy, and shaped atomic structures and brought forth motion. From these things, he crafted the elements, processed them, refined them, and from these things engineered Apple products through the purity of his mind. Each Apple product was individually crafted by his own hands with the programming code used to run each device having being compiled in his brain and uploaded to each device telepathically, breathing life and perfection into each and every unit.
Except, it seems, for me, for I was not among the many. I was a PC. They were Macs. I've always been a cold, stiff person. I got by, disguising myself by keeping my non-Ipod music player safely out of sight, which I use because of my depraved nature demanding more functionality than the simple and easy-to-use Ipods have to offer.. In the safety of my own home, behind locked doors, I ran a Forbidden, a contraband computer from more depraved, earlier days that was not given the love and blessing of being birthed by Steve Jobs. I dual booted, out of the great sin of curiosity-- curiosity, a shameful value of a PC, as curiosity has no place where simplicity matters most--using two of the great unutterable blasphemies-- something called "Windows Vista" and something else called "Linux." Although, as I mentioned before, although my tendency to be a PC and towards conformity has always been inherent to me, I was truly transformed when I found these old things in a hidden cache of computer parts predating The Purging. Perhaps the greatest sin of all, the single evil that, if discovered, would damn me forever, was the fact that my mouse had more than one button.
As I walk among the Macs on the streets, passing the Starbuckses as I went along, I wondered how it all came to this. I glanced at The Holy Marks on the foreheads as the people wandered down the streets, the Bitten Apple tattooed on all our of us at birth, and wondered if, perhaps, there could be something more to life. But again, this was a PC's thought, and not, like everyone elses', a Mac's. We were to hold ourselves to the philosophy of Steve Jobs--so as his products were designed for idiots, so too were we to be idiots. But I was not a Mac--I was not an idiot. I was simply too complicated to be a worthwhile person.
Nature called. I found a nearby public iPoo--squeaky clean and sparkly white, things weren't all bad--and let myself go, expelling the waste that had accumulated inside me. After relieving myself and committing the overly-complicated and thus illegal act of wiping my ass (I did not flush as iPoos, designed to be idiot-proof, did not flush) I left and once again wandered the streets aimlessly, hoping to find some meaning in a world where I simply did not belong, a world where if my true nature was discovered, I would be endlessly persecuted by smug, self-righteous sons of bitches.
Oh, and I never said music can't happen. I merely said that it does hurt artists. Slashdotters keep on emphasizing the perceived "good" for free music but don't want to emphasis how it does hurt artists (and it does). Again, the RIAA's points are overblown but that doesn't make them necessarily completely wrong.