But if the MPAA is correct, the people aren't apathetic, they are simply doing what they believe is right. The laws should conform to the people in most cases, not the other way around. If the people believe that downloading music is right, then perhaps the laws should be revised.
Because there is no way to try before you buy legally. With a book its close to a non-issue, Barnes and Noble won't kick me out for reading a full book while in their store, why is it so different with music/DVDs? Unless I can listen to the entire album in-store, I don't know what I'm buying. Lets say I buy a physical good, a clock radio for example. However, I don't like the alarm sound of it because I don't think it will get me up, I repackage the product and return it no questions asked mostly.
If Wal-Mart let me listen to the full album before I bought it, it wouldn't be an issue. If it was legal to listen to the album by downloading it at home before I bought it it would be a non-issue. But if I don't know what I'm getting, and I can't return it, it isn't a product, its a gamble.
With the internet, the world is your market. A small software developer in Kansas could access European, Asian, African, etc. markets. Someone in Georgia could access every market also (unless Russia has an embargo or something on them).
Yeah, you have lower quality work, but in many cases it is easily offset by taxes. The main thing about taxes is it punishes you for being successful. The more successful you are the higher you have to pay in taxes. The foreign workforce is usually decently educated, cheap and willing to work long hours because the standard of living is lower. Someone being paid US minimum wage in the US can hardly even afford rent, the same pay gives a person "middle class" status in third-world or developing countries.
Code is generally code. Lower quality code for a much lower price is many times a decent price to pay.
It won't be good news for the US unless we lower taxes to Georgia's levels. While it is the low taxes that attract them, lower labor costs also are beneficial. Few US companies really want to outsource, but lower taxes + lower labor = profit. Many companies are willing to turn a blind eye to higher labor costs due to perceived quality benefits, but taxes simply harm successful companies so a successful company would want to move to someplace to lower taxes in order to get ahead.
Thats basically what happens when countries lower their taxes corporations go there. It seems to be something that the current administration doesn't seem to understand, if we're charging higher taxes, higher labor costs, for essentially the same service why not move elsewhere? Most businesses would want to stay in the US but when the US seems to be raising taxes for successful businesses, is there any reason not to move?
Yes, but look at treaties from the 1700s and early 1800s, the majority of them were to end wars, settle disputes, etc. it wasn't till much later that the treaties stopped being real treaties and started involving things that weren't ending wars or settling disputes or opening free trade, etc. but rather banning things while negotiating aid and exports to force countries into passing laws. Compare something like the Treaty of Ghent and United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Wikipedia it,/. is being lame and won't let me post the actual link to it) the Treaty of Ghent was what the founding fathers without a doubt had in mind when they said treaties: things to end wars/disputes, the constitutional provision was needed to give the authority to make sure American citizens followed through for example by vacating occupied territories in Canada described in the Treaty of Ghent.
The current "treaties" are treaties in name and legal status only. They allow for laws to be made outside of public scrutiny, and because the word "treaty" has a positive connotation based on the treaties in our history like the Treaty of Ghent and the like, it is used often.
Well, the primary thing that I can think of is "TiVoizion" (see http://gplv3.fsf.org/pipermail/info-gplv3/2006-February/000001.html ) of taking Open Source software and then bundling it with restrictions in the hardware to prevent you from actually using the software, just look at Android for a major example and phones like the Motorola Backflip in particular.
Then look at the article on Trusted Computing ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html ) and then look at the Kindle remotely deleting copies of purchased e-books, restrictions on various cell phones, etc.
Also, look at some of the articles on non-free file formats, the same things RMS was predicting has come true not in file formats but in social networking sites like Facebook, the root cause being the same: when you entrust your information to a format you can't control you lose control of that information.
Then of course the things against software patents, the Java trap is now quickly coming to "the Cloud" and controlled marketplaces like Apple's App store, etc.
The problem though is compounded though in the Republican and Democrat parties though. If I am a "Republican" does that mean I favor Ron Paul or John McCain? Etc. The Libertarian party has basic principles that almost all members share. At the very least a person who is in the Libertarian party or has libertarian thinking believes in a smaller government, reducing government spending, increasing freedom of speech/press/religion/expression/right to bear arms/etc. or at least not destroying those rights, etc. On the other hand there are radical differences between candidates between the 2 main parties. For example, do you have a democrat candidate like Russ Feingold who voted against the PATRIOT Act? Or a democrat candidate who votes to censor free speech?
Fragmentation is a lot more prevalent in the 2 main parties it just is ignored because there are so many voters who ignore issues and vote Republican/Democrat because that is what they have been taught.
Well, yes, that does seem to be the case, but since the majority of this is behind closed doors, we never will really know what goes on but the principle behind it is that a country like, say, Morocco can add in a clause to it and it would pretty much have to be the law in the US.
Because the largest party that promises to do just that, the Libertarian party, is still dwarfed by people who will automatically vote republican/democrat despite their lack of having any coherent ideals. I'm not saying don't get involved, I'm just saying if that third largest political party and one that shares similar ideals on that subject, doesn't have anyone currently in congress the chances of change are slim.
This isn't a "law" this is an agreement, meaning it basically passes without the consent of the people. Essentially the US is letting other countries write the laws for us. This is exactly what the founding fathers warned us about with "Free Trade With All, Entangling Alliances With None".
While there is a time and place for some "binding" contracts such as bi-laterally reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles (lets face it, we don't need thousands upon thousands of warheads that could get lost/stolen/etc.), things like the ACTA and also to some degree the UN effectively force the US to give up its own sovereignty, placing lawmaking not in the hands of elected officials, but unelected delegates from not just the US but almost every other country.
Free trade is easy to accomplish, simply let people purchase goods from foreign countries just like domestic products, only using internationally recognized standards such as gold, silver, platinum, palladium, oil, etc. However, in this day and age, its hard to avoid entangling alliances that infringe on the sovereignty of the USA.
That may be true but really, almost every one of his predictions has come true in one way or another. As much as I really would like to dismiss him as having unworkable policies, he has been spot on for almost everything.
Linux Format is nice... but a bit expensive if you live in the US (about $16-17) and also focuses on newbies. It was a great introduction to Linux, but I really don't see an advanced coder really appreciating it as much.
If you are new to Linux I don't think I can recommend another magazine as highly as Linux Format, but if you are an advanced coder it might not be that interesting to you. Though I do like one of the projects from one of the authors of it, its called MikeOS, it is an OS entirely coded in assembly and is really easy to reprogram and is well documented. http://mikeos.berlios.de/
There is a difference between a lot of Apple design complaints and that of Nintendo. Of course 3D effects aren't going to be perfect because they haven't been tried yet. Secondly Nintendo is known for some pretty low price hardware and making a profit off of it. Nintendo isn't going to release a $300 handheld or a $500 console. On the other hand a lot of the complaints on Apple have been things that you could have added in software, simple hardware fixes, etc. If I was paying $500 for a console I'd expect to have things like HDMI and such built in. For a $250 console in 2006? Not so much...
Exactly. Hell even the Pokemon games are fun RPGs from time to time. Who cares if there isn't anybody having their head decapitated, Nintendo games are still incredibly fun. There are only so many FPS games you can play without getting bored of the entire genre for a time. On the other hand, playing through Nintendo's classic library is incredibly fun. I'd take Yoshi's Island with "cute" drawn graphics and solid gameplay over a repetitive murderfest any day.
Well, based on what I can see based on the ease of all of the new Wii games, Nintendo Hard has become Nintendo "this game will play by itself practically". Or Nintendo Hard has become Nintendo frustrating because third parties can't use a touchscreen/motion controller effectively in a game.
I'm sorry but the games on the Wii are crap, the Virtual Console has more decent games and more playability than the entire current Wii library. And its not that the Wii is underpowered its just the developers aren't giving it decent games. I don't care that its in standard definition, I care if its fun. And I'd much rather play The Orange Box on my 360 than sit through another minigame compilation that seems to be the only games ever made for the Wii.
I prefer a controller every single time. Don't get me wrong, I love some of the games on the Wii (Super Smash Bros. Brawl to name one) but the Wii remote is a joke. Yes, the "motion plus" thing helps, but other than nintendo's own games no other developer has gotten it halfway right. Mix this in with a ton of crap games (just about every other Wii game is either a Wii sports knockoff or minigame compilation) and the fact that Nintendo seems to think their only demographic anymore is 30 year old moms... You have games that are crap to play.
Imagine playing a game like Team Fortress 2 with the Wii Remote, it would be terrible there is a reason why I'm not a sniper in real life, I don't like holding my arm at an angle for extended periods of time in a single spot.
The Wii remote has its uses, its just those uses are a whole lot more limited than the possibilities offered by a traditional controller like the Classic Controller which I use every chance I get.
Sure, but Nintendo will no doubt use it to its fullest. I remember back when the first DS games came out being confused as to why I wanted a resistive touch screen. Then games like WarioWare Touched came out and it just made sense.
While third parties will no doubt screw it up on their games, Nintendo has a history of making concepts that sound weird but producing games that are fun.
Plus, the 3-D effect can be turned off, which is a really nice touch.
So has Nintendo finally decided they are going to give gamers actual substance rather than just "wiggle the Wii remote around" fluff? I'd really, really like to play my Wii some more but until now it seems like all Nintendo seemed to care about is 30 year old moms. I really didn't consider myself a "hardcore" gamer till the Wii came out.
So is it time to finally start buying Wii games when these come out? Or will Nintendo try to make these appeal to 30 year old moms again?
There are a -lot- of problem page editors on the weirdest articles. If you are an anonymous contributor, chances are that your edits will be reverted without someone even looking at them. Heck, even citations are reverted because they "look suspicious". I used to contribute some to Wikipedia whenever I saw an error, however, there has been too many times that my edits have been reverted without anyone looking at them or reading them. Even simple things like correcting spelling mistakes all too often get reverted.
But the main question is, do we need a huge company to do all this stuff? Does having a $200,000 wardrobe budget really make the movie that much better? Heck, a lot of the stuff on YouTube is better than the trash on TV, xkcd and other webcomics are usually better than all the "professional" cartoonists with a "real" publisher and editors and the like.
And there are also ads and the like to generate revenue. Look at Google, it had a profit of over $6 billion last year, and yet it in essence gives away its chief product(s)! I don't have to pay $30.00 for a license to use Google's search engine, the majority if not all of their downloadable programs are free, the majority of Android save for a couple of Google created programs are open source, etc.
Again, there are very, very few people/companies that have been "killed" through "piracy" and had a good program that appealed to people.
Right, because an internet forum is a great place to get accurate data...
Lets see here, Zombieland made $102,297,496 with a budget of $23.6 million (see http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=zombieland.htm) . And that isn't even taking into consideration any sales from DVD sales. I'd say that is a lot of money made in profit. Note that they've made over 50 million dollars in -profit- not just sales but profit after they've paid everyone.
Can you show me a great movie/game/etc that really -has- been killed off by "piracy" and not just the fact that it didn't appeal to a wider audience or that the movie/game/etc was terrible?
Technology is coming along at such a fast pace that you don't need a studio to make a movie, you don't need theaters to make a profit. The internet is full of examples of this. In the '80s and earlier, yeah, you needed professional equipment, today? You can go out and buy a camcorder that will shoot HD video, a computer and programs that add in special effects, etc.
So go on, find an example of something "killed" by "piracy" that was truly killed by it.
Slashdot Mirror
it might be an issue with an apathetic public
But if the MPAA is correct, the people aren't apathetic, they are simply doing what they believe is right. The laws should conform to the people in most cases, not the other way around. If the people believe that downloading music is right, then perhaps the laws should be revised.
Because there is no way to try before you buy legally. With a book its close to a non-issue, Barnes and Noble won't kick me out for reading a full book while in their store, why is it so different with music/DVDs? Unless I can listen to the entire album in-store, I don't know what I'm buying. Lets say I buy a physical good, a clock radio for example. However, I don't like the alarm sound of it because I don't think it will get me up, I repackage the product and return it no questions asked mostly.
If Wal-Mart let me listen to the full album before I bought it, it wouldn't be an issue. If it was legal to listen to the album by downloading it at home before I bought it it would be a non-issue. But if I don't know what I'm getting, and I can't return it, it isn't a product, its a gamble.
Is there a lot of access to the European market
With the internet, the world is your market. A small software developer in Kansas could access European, Asian, African, etc. markets. Someone in Georgia could access every market also (unless Russia has an embargo or something on them).
Yeah, you have lower quality work, but in many cases it is easily offset by taxes. The main thing about taxes is it punishes you for being successful. The more successful you are the higher you have to pay in taxes. The foreign workforce is usually decently educated, cheap and willing to work long hours because the standard of living is lower. Someone being paid US minimum wage in the US can hardly even afford rent, the same pay gives a person "middle class" status in third-world or developing countries.
Code is generally code. Lower quality code for a much lower price is many times a decent price to pay.
It won't be good news for the US unless we lower taxes to Georgia's levels. While it is the low taxes that attract them, lower labor costs also are beneficial. Few US companies really want to outsource, but lower taxes + lower labor = profit. Many companies are willing to turn a blind eye to higher labor costs due to perceived quality benefits, but taxes simply harm successful companies so a successful company would want to move to someplace to lower taxes in order to get ahead.
Thats basically what happens when countries lower their taxes corporations go there. It seems to be something that the current administration doesn't seem to understand, if we're charging higher taxes, higher labor costs, for essentially the same service why not move elsewhere? Most businesses would want to stay in the US but when the US seems to be raising taxes for successful businesses, is there any reason not to move?
Yes, but look at treaties from the 1700s and early 1800s, the majority of them were to end wars, settle disputes, etc. it wasn't till much later that the treaties stopped being real treaties and started involving things that weren't ending wars or settling disputes or opening free trade, etc. but rather banning things while negotiating aid and exports to force countries into passing laws. Compare something like the Treaty of Ghent and United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Wikipedia it, /. is being lame and won't let me post the actual link to it) the Treaty of Ghent was what the founding fathers without a doubt had in mind when they said treaties: things to end wars/disputes, the constitutional provision was needed to give the authority to make sure American citizens followed through for example by vacating occupied territories in Canada described in the Treaty of Ghent.
The current "treaties" are treaties in name and legal status only. They allow for laws to be made outside of public scrutiny, and because the word "treaty" has a positive connotation based on the treaties in our history like the Treaty of Ghent and the like, it is used often.
Well, the primary thing that I can think of is "TiVoizion" (see http://gplv3.fsf.org/pipermail/info-gplv3/2006-February/000001.html ) of taking Open Source software and then bundling it with restrictions in the hardware to prevent you from actually using the software, just look at Android for a major example and phones like the Motorola Backflip in particular.
Then look at the article on Trusted Computing ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html ) and then look at the Kindle remotely deleting copies of purchased e-books, restrictions on various cell phones, etc.
Also, look at some of the articles on non-free file formats, the same things RMS was predicting has come true not in file formats but in social networking sites like Facebook, the root cause being the same: when you entrust your information to a format you can't control you lose control of that information.
Then of course the things against software patents, the Java trap is now quickly coming to "the Cloud" and controlled marketplaces like Apple's App store, etc.
The problem though is compounded though in the Republican and Democrat parties though. If I am a "Republican" does that mean I favor Ron Paul or John McCain? Etc. The Libertarian party has basic principles that almost all members share. At the very least a person who is in the Libertarian party or has libertarian thinking believes in a smaller government, reducing government spending, increasing freedom of speech/press/religion/expression/right to bear arms/etc. or at least not destroying those rights, etc. On the other hand there are radical differences between candidates between the 2 main parties. For example, do you have a democrat candidate like Russ Feingold who voted against the PATRIOT Act? Or a democrat candidate who votes to censor free speech?
Fragmentation is a lot more prevalent in the 2 main parties it just is ignored because there are so many voters who ignore issues and vote Republican/Democrat because that is what they have been taught.
Well, yes, that does seem to be the case, but since the majority of this is behind closed doors, we never will really know what goes on but the principle behind it is that a country like, say, Morocco can add in a clause to it and it would pretty much have to be the law in the US.
Because the largest party that promises to do just that, the Libertarian party, is still dwarfed by people who will automatically vote republican/democrat despite their lack of having any coherent ideals. I'm not saying don't get involved, I'm just saying if that third largest political party and one that shares similar ideals on that subject, doesn't have anyone currently in congress the chances of change are slim.
This isn't a "law" this is an agreement, meaning it basically passes without the consent of the people. Essentially the US is letting other countries write the laws for us. This is exactly what the founding fathers warned us about with "Free Trade With All, Entangling Alliances With None".
While there is a time and place for some "binding" contracts such as bi-laterally reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles (lets face it, we don't need thousands upon thousands of warheads that could get lost/stolen/etc.), things like the ACTA and also to some degree the UN effectively force the US to give up its own sovereignty, placing lawmaking not in the hands of elected officials, but unelected delegates from not just the US but almost every other country.
Free trade is easy to accomplish, simply let people purchase goods from foreign countries just like domestic products, only using internationally recognized standards such as gold, silver, platinum, palladium, oil, etc. However, in this day and age, its hard to avoid entangling alliances that infringe on the sovereignty of the USA.
That may be true but really, almost every one of his predictions has come true in one way or another. As much as I really would like to dismiss him as having unworkable policies, he has been spot on for almost everything.
Linux Format is nice... but a bit expensive if you live in the US (about $16-17) and also focuses on newbies. It was a great introduction to Linux, but I really don't see an advanced coder really appreciating it as much.
If you are new to Linux I don't think I can recommend another magazine as highly as Linux Format, but if you are an advanced coder it might not be that interesting to you. Though I do like one of the projects from one of the authors of it, its called MikeOS, it is an OS entirely coded in assembly and is really easy to reprogram and is well documented. http://mikeos.berlios.de/
There is a difference between a lot of Apple design complaints and that of Nintendo. Of course 3D effects aren't going to be perfect because they haven't been tried yet. Secondly Nintendo is known for some pretty low price hardware and making a profit off of it. Nintendo isn't going to release a $300 handheld or a $500 console. On the other hand a lot of the complaints on Apple have been things that you could have added in software, simple hardware fixes, etc. If I was paying $500 for a console I'd expect to have things like HDMI and such built in. For a $250 console in 2006? Not so much...
Exactly. Hell even the Pokemon games are fun RPGs from time to time. Who cares if there isn't anybody having their head decapitated, Nintendo games are still incredibly fun. There are only so many FPS games you can play without getting bored of the entire genre for a time. On the other hand, playing through Nintendo's classic library is incredibly fun. I'd take Yoshi's Island with "cute" drawn graphics and solid gameplay over a repetitive murderfest any day.
Well, based on what I can see based on the ease of all of the new Wii games, Nintendo Hard has become Nintendo "this game will play by itself practically". Or Nintendo Hard has become Nintendo frustrating because third parties can't use a touchscreen/motion controller effectively in a game.
I'm sorry but the games on the Wii are crap, the Virtual Console has more decent games and more playability than the entire current Wii library. And its not that the Wii is underpowered its just the developers aren't giving it decent games. I don't care that its in standard definition, I care if its fun. And I'd much rather play The Orange Box on my 360 than sit through another minigame compilation that seems to be the only games ever made for the Wii.
I prefer a controller every single time. Don't get me wrong, I love some of the games on the Wii (Super Smash Bros. Brawl to name one) but the Wii remote is a joke. Yes, the "motion plus" thing helps, but other than nintendo's own games no other developer has gotten it halfway right. Mix this in with a ton of crap games (just about every other Wii game is either a Wii sports knockoff or minigame compilation) and the fact that Nintendo seems to think their only demographic anymore is 30 year old moms... You have games that are crap to play.
Imagine playing a game like Team Fortress 2 with the Wii Remote, it would be terrible there is a reason why I'm not a sniper in real life, I don't like holding my arm at an angle for extended periods of time in a single spot.
The Wii remote has its uses, its just those uses are a whole lot more limited than the possibilities offered by a traditional controller like the Classic Controller which I use every chance I get.
Sure, but Nintendo will no doubt use it to its fullest. I remember back when the first DS games came out being confused as to why I wanted a resistive touch screen. Then games like WarioWare Touched came out and it just made sense.
While third parties will no doubt screw it up on their games, Nintendo has a history of making concepts that sound weird but producing games that are fun.
Plus, the 3-D effect can be turned off, which is a really nice touch.
So has Nintendo finally decided they are going to give gamers actual substance rather than just "wiggle the Wii remote around" fluff? I'd really, really like to play my Wii some more but until now it seems like all Nintendo seemed to care about is 30 year old moms. I really didn't consider myself a "hardcore" gamer till the Wii came out.
So is it time to finally start buying Wii games when these come out? Or will Nintendo try to make these appeal to 30 year old moms again?
There are a -lot- of problem page editors on the weirdest articles. If you are an anonymous contributor, chances are that your edits will be reverted without someone even looking at them. Heck, even citations are reverted because they "look suspicious". I used to contribute some to Wikipedia whenever I saw an error, however, there has been too many times that my edits have been reverted without anyone looking at them or reading them. Even simple things like correcting spelling mistakes all too often get reverted.
Comment deleted because it was posted anonymously and must be a troll.
Yeah, but they aren't "open and clear" they change depending on the editor and which page.
Not to mention that even simple edits like updates or the like get reverted randomly.
In the end Wikipedia manages to scare away potential editors rather than attract them.
But the main question is, do we need a huge company to do all this stuff? Does having a $200,000 wardrobe budget really make the movie that much better? Heck, a lot of the stuff on YouTube is better than the trash on TV, xkcd and other webcomics are usually better than all the "professional" cartoonists with a "real" publisher and editors and the like.
And there are also ads and the like to generate revenue. Look at Google, it had a profit of over $6 billion last year, and yet it in essence gives away its chief product(s)! I don't have to pay $30.00 for a license to use Google's search engine, the majority if not all of their downloadable programs are free, the majority of Android save for a couple of Google created programs are open source, etc.
Again, there are very, very few people/companies that have been "killed" through "piracy" and had a good program that appealed to people.
Right, because an internet forum is a great place to get accurate data...
Lets see here, Zombieland made $102,297,496 with a budget of $23.6 million (see http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=zombieland.htm) . And that isn't even taking into consideration any sales from DVD sales. I'd say that is a lot of money made in profit. Note that they've made over 50 million dollars in -profit- not just sales but profit after they've paid everyone.
Can you show me a great movie/game/etc that really -has- been killed off by "piracy" and not just the fact that it didn't appeal to a wider audience or that the movie/game/etc was terrible?
Technology is coming along at such a fast pace that you don't need a studio to make a movie, you don't need theaters to make a profit. The internet is full of examples of this. In the '80s and earlier, yeah, you needed professional equipment, today? You can go out and buy a camcorder that will shoot HD video, a computer and programs that add in special effects, etc.
So go on, find an example of something "killed" by "piracy" that was truly killed by it.