Ok.. i posted this same thing in reply to another comment that was nearly identical, but i'm posting it again just in case nobody sees it with that one:)
Um, you seem to miss the *entire* point of ratings (so has anyone else who has suggested things like this, which multiple post I have read have). For the most part the only reason that people care about ratings is because a) it means people will watch a program and hence see advertising and make the people who the program money or b) go out and buy the product, making whoever made the material money. Any artists out to make a living isn't necessarily going to care that they're really popular and "the most downloaded" if nobody is buying their music and they're not making any money. Similarly, with the pirating of movies/tv programs/whatever the people who make the programs aren't going to give a flying f#ck about how "popular" their material is if they aren't making any money on it.
Um, you seem to miss the *entire* point of ratings (so has anyone else who has suggested things like this, which multiple post I have read have). For the most part the only reason that people care about ratings is because a) it means people will watch a program and hence see advertising and make the people who the program money or b) go out and buy the product, making whoever made the material money. Any artists out to make a living isn't necessarily going to care that they're really popular and "the most downloaded" if nobody is buying their music and they're not making any money. Similarly, with the pirating of movies/tv programs/whatever the people who make the programs aren't going to give a flying f#ck about how "popular" their material is if they aren't making any money on it.
Whoop-dee-doo. CD's cost a lot. People can charge whatever the hell they want to for CD's. If you don't like it and think it is too high, then you go without the music. You don't have some sort of god-given right to hear music that others create. Just because the price is too high doesn't justify stealing. If you think a group's music isn't worth $18, don't listen to it period. If enough people thought $18 for a CD was too high and people stopped buying music the price would go down or something would happen. The prices havn't gone down however, because people DO buy cd's because they believe the cost is justified (apparently, if someone paid $18 for a cd they didn't think worth $18 then sucks to be them, they made a bad decision). K.. i'm done ranting.
You seem to ignore certain things such as why corporations have the power they do. AOL and Time-Warner didn't just pop out of nowhere with billions of dollars. They became the powerhouses they are because *individuals* wanted the services they had to offer and gave them money for it. If the vast majority of Americans were unhappy with these corporations for a vast period of time there power would dwindle. You complain about how companies such as Wal-Mart can overpower small-business ownership as if it is a terrible thing. You know what? Individuals are making money from that Wal-Mart. Just because some ma and pa store can't succeed doesn't mean that the system is unfair. Just because large corporations such as Wal-Mart are successful doesn't mean they don't also have the right to compete in the market and be as successful as possible.
Also, I must say this is am extraordinarily poorly written article. It has *very* little substance, mostly only opinion backed up by nothing. Come on, I was taught in my high school writing classes to back up my writing with more evidence than was put into this article published by a "professional writer". Everywhere in this new Republic, individualism is on the run. A nation founded on the notion of individual choice, liberty, privacy, and primacy is in danger of being subsumed. All social and political issues -- work, privacy, creativity, individual liberty -- are subordinate to corporatism's sole ideology: economics. Care to explain why I can't be creative because Time-Warner can blackout "Who wants to be a Millionaire"? I mean really, this piece is full of buzz-words that have little meaning without specific interpretation/proof.
Yes, getting rid of guns just becaus the owners are able to commit murder would be a silly thing to do, but lets say 99% of gun owners used their guns to kill other people... would you still say it was a bad thing to do?
This is an honest question (don't just moderate me down simply because I disagree with the common slashdot opinion on privacy): What do you actually think will happen to you if they did monitor what you watch? Custom advertising tailored to what seems to be your interest? Is that really a bad thing? I don't know about your, but I personally could do without seeing all those feminine hygene advertisements:). Most of the arguments I seem to see on here are basically "well... it's the principle of the thing...". I hardly *ever* see anyone mention the actually possible "horrible" consequences of someone invading your privacy in such a seemingly trivial way. Right now i am envisioning someone responding with something like "Well.. what happens when the government starts flagging people who watch a lot of violent shows?"... but really, millions of people watch violent shows on tv - what are the chances the government is going to do this, let alone start singling people out (they don't have the resources to monitor millions of people's tv viewing habbits). Now.. ever if they DID start singling people out, what do you think they're going to do? Keep a close eye on you and if you commit some sort of crime arrest you? That would hardly seem like a problem to me (yeah.. then you say "but other people commit crimes too and have a less chance of getting caught cause they're not monitored" -- but that's just crazy-talk... doesn't mean it's unfair that you got caught, it means our policing system needs to be improved so those other people are caught too). Anyhoo.. just some of my ranting.. maybe someone can change my mind or something.
"But I have yet to see a single actual artist take a stance against it."
Did you miss the article posted yesterday on The Dark Side of Napster? It has several artist speaking out against it. Creed frontman Scott Strapp (misspelled in the article, those bums:) explains why he thinks more artists haven't spoken out against the format as well (ignore + the fear of being seen as greedy, even though they are only asking for what is rightly theirs). On a side note: I've seen MANY people talk about things like t-shirt sales and tours and stuff, if you actually read that article, actual artists explain that unless you're someone like Dave Matthews who sells out stadiums, you don't really make all that much money from t-shirts/tours.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok.. i posted this same thing in reply to another comment that was nearly identical, but i'm posting it again just in case nobody sees it with that one :)
Um, you seem to miss the *entire* point of ratings (so has anyone else who has suggested things like this, which multiple post I have read have). For the most part the only reason that people care about ratings is because a) it means people will watch a program and hence see advertising and make the people who the program money or b) go out and buy the product, making whoever made the material money. Any artists out to make a living isn't necessarily going to care that they're really popular and "the most downloaded" if nobody is buying their music and they're not making any money. Similarly, with the pirating of movies/tv programs/whatever the people who make the programs aren't going to give a flying f#ck about how "popular" their material is if they aren't making any money on it.
Um, you seem to miss the *entire* point of ratings (so has anyone else who has suggested things like this, which multiple post I have read have). For the most part the only reason that people care about ratings is because a) it means people will watch a program and hence see advertising and make the people who the program money or b) go out and buy the product, making whoever made the material money. Any artists out to make a living isn't necessarily going to care that they're really popular and "the most downloaded" if nobody is buying their music and they're not making any money. Similarly, with the pirating of movies/tv programs/whatever the people who make the programs aren't going to give a flying f#ck about how "popular" their material is if they aren't making any money on it.
Whoop-dee-doo. CD's cost a lot. People can charge whatever the hell they want to for CD's. If you don't like it and think it is too high, then you go without the music. You don't have some sort of god-given right to hear music that others create. Just because the price is too high doesn't justify stealing. If you think a group's music isn't worth $18, don't listen to it period. If enough people thought $18 for a CD was too high and people stopped buying music the price would go down or something would happen. The prices havn't gone down however, because people DO buy cd's because they believe the cost is justified (apparently, if someone paid $18 for a cd they didn't think worth $18 then sucks to be them, they made a bad decision). K.. i'm done ranting.
You seem to ignore certain things such as why corporations have the power they do. AOL and Time-Warner didn't just pop out of nowhere with billions of dollars. They became the powerhouses they are because *individuals* wanted the services they had to offer and gave them money for it. If the vast majority of Americans were unhappy with these corporations for a vast period of time there power would dwindle. You complain about how companies such as Wal-Mart can overpower small-business ownership as if it is a terrible thing. You know what? Individuals are making money from that Wal-Mart. Just because some ma and pa store can't succeed doesn't mean that the system is unfair. Just because large corporations such as Wal-Mart are successful doesn't mean they don't also have the right to compete in the market and be as successful as possible.
Also, I must say this is am extraordinarily poorly written article. It has *very* little substance, mostly only opinion backed up by nothing. Come on, I was taught in my high school writing classes to back up my writing with more evidence than was put into this article published by a "professional writer".
Everywhere in this new Republic, individualism is on the run. A nation founded on the notion of individual choice, liberty, privacy, and primacy is in danger of being subsumed. All social and political issues -- work, privacy, creativity, individual liberty -- are subordinate to corporatism's sole ideology: economics.
Care to explain why I can't be creative because Time-Warner can blackout "Who wants to be a Millionaire"? I mean really, this piece is full of buzz-words that have little meaning without specific interpretation/proof.
Yes, getting rid of guns just becaus the owners are able to commit murder would be a silly thing to do, but lets say 99% of gun owners used their guns to kill other people... would you still say it was a bad thing to do?
This is an honest question (don't just moderate me down simply because I disagree with the common slashdot opinion on privacy): What do you actually think will happen to you if they did monitor what you watch? Custom advertising tailored to what seems to be your interest? Is that really a bad thing? I don't know about your, but I personally could do without seeing all those feminine hygene advertisements :). Most of the arguments I seem to see on here are basically "well... it's the principle of the thing ...". I hardly *ever* see anyone mention the actually possible "horrible" consequences of someone invading your privacy in such a seemingly trivial way. Right now i am envisioning someone responding with something like "Well.. what happens when the government starts flagging people who watch a lot of violent shows?" ... but really, millions of people watch violent shows on tv - what are the chances the government is going to do this, let alone start singling people out (they don't have the resources to monitor millions of people's tv viewing habbits). Now.. ever if they DID start singling people out, what do you think they're going to do? Keep a close eye on you and if you commit some sort of crime arrest you? That would hardly seem like a problem to me (yeah.. then you say "but other people commit crimes too and have a less chance of getting caught cause they're not monitored" -- but that's just crazy-talk ... doesn't mean it's unfair that you got caught, it means our policing system needs to be improved so those other people are caught too). Anyhoo.. just some of my ranting.. maybe someone can change my mind or something.
"But I have yet to see a single actual artist take a stance against it."
:) explains why he thinks more artists haven't spoken out against the format as well (ignore + the fear of being seen as greedy, even though they are only asking for what is rightly theirs). On a side note: I've seen MANY people talk about things like t-shirt sales and tours and stuff, if you actually read that article, actual artists explain that unless you're someone like Dave Matthews who sells out stadiums, you don't really make all that much money from t-shirts/tours.
Did you miss the article posted yesterday on The Dark Side of Napster? It has several artist speaking out against it. Creed frontman Scott Strapp (misspelled in the article, those bums