mothers and fathers rearing children is not the main reason people get married in teh united states anymore. wake up, smell the coffee, it's good isn't it?
do 2 apes get married before they have kids? no. do all heterosexual couples get married to have kids? no. i find this funny in the context of the story about the debate in kansas between scientists and creationists.
family has nothing to do with a man, a woman, and a child. family has to do with people who love each other. apparently you haven't realized that a man can have the same love for another man as a different man can have for a woman. is it a disease? no. is it wrong? no. but men and woman in this country have taken marriage to mean "let's get married because you're pregnant" [2 years pass] "i loev him, not you... let's get a divorce". or how about... "i'm drunk, let's be silly and get married"... [wakes up next morning married] "shit, this ruined my public image... let's have it anulled because i was drunk and stupid" [2 days pass] marriage anulled.
there is no sanctity in marriage in teh united state, i hate to tell you. it's a fact that a higher percentage of gay couples (man-man or woman-woman) have been together longer than heterosexual couples who have been married. so don't give me this archaic crap about the "nuclear" family (or should i say "nucular"?).
give me concrete scientific proof that one side is completely wrong. it doesn't exist. scientific theories exist, but concrete proof does not.
many of the world's greatest scientists believe in a god of some sort.
as for life being created, how did it happen? if humans were truly evolved completely from apes, without the help of anything else, how do apes still exist? in fact, how do any other animals still exist? or is your scientific theory that one day the world will be nothing but humans?
please enlighten me to your concrete evidence. i'm really interested in learning.
disclaimer: i am not a practicing christian, nor am i even remotely a creationist. i am just a curious mind interested in hearing all sides of things before making up my mind about anything. concrete evidence is the only thing that will sway me in one direction or the other, and since religion has no concrete evidence, science surely must... but i have yet to see any.
The news had come out in the First World War The bloody Red Baron was flying once more The Allied command ignored all of its men And called on Snoopy to do it again.
Twas the night before Christmas, 40 below When Snoopy went up in search of his foe He spied the Red Baron, fiercely they fought With ice on his wings Snoopy knew he was caught.
Christmas bells those Christmas bells Ring out from the land Asking peace of all the world And good will to man
The Baron had Snoopy dead in his sights He reached for the trigger to pull it up tight Why he didn't shoot, well, we'll never know Or was it the bells from the village below.
Christmas bells those Christmas bells Ringing through the land Bringing peace to all the world And good will to man
The Baron made Snoopy fly to the Rhine And forced him to land behind the enemy lines Snoopy was certain that this was the end When the Baron cried out, "Merry Christmas, my friend"
The Baron then offered a holiday toast And Snoopy, our hero, saluted his host And then with a roar they were both on their way Each knowing they'd meet on some other day.
Christmas bells those Christmas bells Ringing through the land Bringing peace to all the world And good will to man
Christmas bells those Christmas bells Ringing through the land Bringing peace to all the world And good will to man
i know it's not the RIAA, but radio doesn't play the variety of songs it used to. however, i also don't believe it's entirely the media companies... i am pretty sure the RIAA has a role in this as well... of course no one will ever know for sure...
i don't mind paying for a CD, in fact, i do so regularly... however, i have one issue with who gets paid... RIAA. why should they get money? you also don't address the issue of what percentage goes to all of those people in the chain. i believe the artist, the person doing the most work, the person without whom the CD would not exist, gets less than 1% of what i pay for a CD.
you point about people buying records because they wanted to listen to them at their own convenience is true... however, you are wrong in assuming that if they had the ability to record off the radio, they would. i remember when cassette tapes were big, people would request songs on the radio so they could make a mix tape. you couldn't do that when only vinyl existed.
i believe the artists should be compensated... i don't record cd's or pirate music. i will download a few songs from an artist that i want to hear more of and then depending on how much i like it, i'll go buy the album. otherwise, i generally get rid of the files. it's like a preview. can't really do that. and back when only vinyl was available, you couldn't make a recording of your friend's record. concerts may have been bootlegged, but it wasn't easy to make copies of it.
artists are not overcompensated by the industry. they're overcompensated by everything else that goes along with being in the industry. that's how the industry can get away with giving them the shaft when it comes to paying them. however, what the industry does is give the artist a false sense of luxury. MC hammer (remember him) went on spending binges when he was popular. he disappeared quickly and when he was no longer in the spotlight, he ran out of money. is it all the industry's fault? no. did they give him a false sense of security? most likely. if he got paid what he should've for his work, would he have been in such bad financial state? definitely not. and yes, i do agree that artists today all suck and should not be picked up by the industry. the industry is looking for pretty faces, nothing more, nothing less. they don't care about talent.
creating a hit can take minutes, or it can take months. if it takes months, it generally means that someone is purposely trying to create a hit. if it takes minutes, they're just making good music and have talent. you'd be surprised how many of those great songs from the 60's and 70's were written in under an hour. those are the people who deserve the money, not the songwriters the industry hires to give people like britney a big radio hit. those people are in it for the money, not the art. they lose credibility in my opinion. however, your argument against performing music is flawed. if the artist can only create it in the studio with all that processing and producing, how can they be considered a true musician? ashley simpson is popular, that's a fact. ashley simpson is post-processed, also a fact. ashley simpson, when performing live, lip syncs. fact. why should i give her money? she did nothing but sing and it's not a good voice because it was created for her by a computer. i should give whoever wrote the program to fix her voice the money.
a lot of major label artists are hypocrits. in fact, most of them are. they're all about being anti-establishment, fuck the police, fuck the gov't... but i'm with the RIAA. however, there are also a lot of major label artists who are anti-establishment and advertise that through their music... tom petty's last dj album for instance... full of anti-corporate messages, released by warner. many major label artists are also in favor of file sharing. the indie artists are a different story... but i'm not talking the "indie" style of music because that means nothing. modest mouse is major label... t
that's because linux and firefox are not mainstream... if they became mainstream, people would find ways to get spyware on it. as is... firefox without any added extensions is vulnerable to pop-under ads.
if you are implying that the judges of the supreme court for massachusetts over-stepped the majority opinion of the population of massachusetts, you are wrong. what they did was take the state constitution and looked to see where it defined marriage as that of a man and a woman. it didn't. they then went and said that any laws stating that marriage between a man and a woman were unconstitutional according to their state constitution. just because the majority disagrees with their decision doesn't mean they're wrong.
the issue of gay marriage is far far more than hurt feelings, uncomfortable situations and disapproval of others. it has to do with tax rights, inheritance rights, the right to visit your partner in the hospital. our country has a very strict separation of church and state. just because christians believe that gays are sinners by definition does not mean that the government believes so. oh yeah, and that separate of church and state is in the FEDERAL constitution. it is not harmful to children to be raised by a gay couple. that has not be proven, nor will it ever be since it's false. what it does do is teach children the ability to accept people who are different, something it seems like you need to learn to do yourself...
i hate the mpaa and riaa just as much as the next guy. however, i don't download music, i prefer to have the actual cd. i'm a big music fan, i'm not about to stop buying music just because the industry sucks.
the largest demograph of downloaders are teenagers and college students. that's a fact. now, while i can't prove otherwise, i do work in a college. almost every student i know (and i know quite a bit) downloads music so taht they don't have to buy the album. now they can't be caught because it's all internet campus stuff that they use to grab the songs, but it's still keeping them from buying the album.
you're a musician. you write a song. it's not perfect, but it's recorded. you don't want it heard by the general public. someone leaks it. it gets downloaded. they took something that belongs to you. your art. artists (which includes musicians, movie directors, actors, etc) have a right to keep their art private. maybe the only way a filmmaker wants his movie to be seen is in theatres. i think that's a pretty good analogy. in fact, that's right on the ball to what you're arguing. it's like watching a taped stage production. you don't get the same thing out of it as you would if you were there. maybe for some, but you're not getting the full art of what's happening. you're stealing someone else's intellectual property. so forget the prices even. it's the fact that they want their art to be viewed or heard in a certain way and they don't want people to have the unfinished product, which is what happened with dave matthews and the lillywhite sessions. dave just happens to be a bit more liberal in his music than metallica, although i do think he was still pretty upset about it.
i'm actually pretty sure that if a band plays a cover tune and they're being paid for their performance, they have to pay royalties on it. of course, i heard this from someone who doesn't know much about the industry, so it's probably wrong.
it comes down to profitting from the song. if someone makes money from your song, you should get something out of it for publishing the song. are they making money solely by performing it or by selling recordings?
in your scenario... once the recording surfaces, you own the copyright to that one song. if the recording is caught being traded or even sold, you can sue for royalties and copyright infringement.
ok, so go back to my apple comparison... or how about a different one, like gaming consoles...
the item does not exist on the market yet. but it's there. the manufacturers are holding out to create a huge demand for their new console (PS3, xbox2, whatever). they're sitting on the stockpile in their warehouses waiting for a release date a few months down the road. some young gamer just can't deal with this anymore and absolutely needs to get his hands on one. but, this is a gamer who sees the possibility of capitalizing off of this. so he comes up with a scheme and manages to rip off a small truckload of these devices from the warehouse and continues to sell them, keeping one for himself.
as for what you are saying about the music or movie not being available for sale... well... it will be available for sale. adn everyone who gets their hands on a bootleg copy can be assumed to not be purchasing a legal copy. it's intellectual property as well. who that intellectual property actually belongs to, that's another story. but let's say, for argument's sake, it belongs to the artist. an independent musician, not affiliated with the RIAA at all, has managed to become very popular. he's about to release a new album. there's a huge demand for this. someone manages to get a copy. now this musician's only income is through the sale of his albums, at prices lower than major label releases. the person who gets the copy then goes and continues to share it on every filesharing network he can find. pretty soon millions of people have access to that music. so now there are that many more people who are not going to pay for the album, for the rights to the music. the musician cannot afford this as it is his only source of income. the reason you create the demand ahead of time is to make sure you can afford your overhead costs. the musician spent lots of money recording the album, printing up nice packaging, etc. now too few people buy it because it's already floating around on the internet before it was even released. he just threw away all that money because of some kid who just couldn't want.
patience is a virtue my friend. apparently you lack it. i suggest you find some or else you'll have some serious problems...
no, there's no technical reason a dvd can't be released at the same time as the theatrical release. and you cannot compare this to concert recordings because anything can happen at a concert. you can't release a copy of soemthing that hasn't happened yet. i do agree, however, that depending on the movie, the industry can be capitalizing off of this much more... however, they can't get people into theatres if they're selling the DVD at the same time. instead, they should wait about a month after it's done playing (or 2 months after the theatrical release, something on that idea) to release a plain DVD with no special features. then a few months later, release a special edition (without announcing that it'll happen ahead of time). a lot of people are suckers that they'll buy both...
the same scenarios can be used in the software world as well... no, i am not a fan of MS, but i also don't see a reaon why software has to be free. in the whole metallica/napster thing, they wanted the album to be released in a certain manner. but people got ahold of it before the release date and shared in on napster. metallica made the mistake of making it about money, but for a lot of indie artists (true indie, not bands like modest mouse) it really is about the money. U2 refused to allow their album to be sold on itunes as separate tracks because it's a piece of art. the days of bands creating albums for the concept, for the flow of all the songs are not over, nor will they ever be (thank god). when the industry stops selling hard copies of albums, i stop buying music. granted, the industry does need to adapt to changes, but stealing someone's art (which is what copyright infringement comes down to) is still stealing. it's like an artist paints something and is waiting
copyright law addresses the bootleg issue. most bands don't have an official policy, but when you buy a ticket, it generally says you cannot bring in taping equipment.
supply and demand doesn't run the market when it comes to stolen goods.
yes, the law addresses works that are not yet released. no, they cannot be purchased. you should wait patiently for them to be released. is it that hard for you?
ok, so they make them wait and create a demand... when the supply comes, you have your supply.
ok, so say the powerbooks are stolen from apple's warehouse. does that make it better?
either way, you're wrong. you are stealing something that belongs to someone else. and you're doing it because you want it that bad. if you wanted sex that bad, would you rape the nearest girl wearing provocative clothing? it's very similar. you can't argue that the huge demand they create makes it ok to steal.
the copyright belongs to the same people who own the copyright to the songs. the bands that allow taping have permission from their record labels to allow it. of course a lot of those bands also either don't make a ton of money from their albums or they have the pull and following to basically tell the record company that they're going to allow it and there's nothing they can do.
i happen to know a bit about this since i am actively (or was actively) involved with trading bootlegs. it is copyrighted unless the band gives rights for free taping and trading of their shows (such as phish or the dave matthews band or a slew of others). this is not a "pre-release". this is a recording of a concert. if a band releases that concert, the audience copies are inferior (in many people's minds) to the soundboard copy that the band would release. phish had a clause when they started their livephish downloads (all shows available for a pay-per-download within 2 days after the show) that didn't allow any trading of that show, no matter what the source (aud of sbd). they changed it to allow audience recordings. they, of course, are no longer in existence, however, i think they had one of the more "free" taping/trading policies. one of the only things that all these policies have in common is that you cannot offer for sale these recordings. and many record stores violate that by selling them. i have reported many record stores to bands and will continue to do so as they run the risk of causing the band to decide to stop allowing the free taping/trading.
your comment about pre-releases being the free market at work is wrong. the blackmarket can be considered the free market at work as well... stolen items from stores or homes. would you consider that legal? someone steals your new plasma TV from your house. you paid $3000 (or whatever they cost) for it. sells it on the black market for $1000. someone buys it because it's a great deal. they just bought a stolen item. the same works for buying a bootleg dvd or a bootleg concert.
and yes, the laws of supply and demand are in place here... but the biggest reason people illegally download stuff is because it's too expensive to pay for. i, for one, prefer to buy my music and have no downloaded anything illegal in quite some time. and a lot of the bands i listen to are better live and i trade/download their shows because they allow it. if they don't allow it, i don't trade them. it's as simple as that. and the reason they work up a "huge" demand for their works is so that they can get people to go out and pay for them. it's called marketing. apple does it too, but would you pay someone for a brand new powerbook they stole from an apple store? think about that one...
so here's the root of this argument... windows requires a microsoft product in order to fix itself. a buggy piece of software requires a piece of software from a company known for making buggy pieces of software. activex, one of the biggest security issues with windows and IE is required to install security patches to windows and IE.
requiring the use of the browser or not (and i realize this has nothing to do with the argument at hand, but had this been stated much sooner, the argument never would have occurred), an insecure means should not be used to install security updates. and it should not be the only manner with which to install security updates. same argument goes for using msi's, which can only be run in normal mode (biggest issue i have with the way MS packaged the anti-spyware software).
if you're the expert you think you are (and you seem to be standing alone with your train of thought), why don't you explain how it works.
as for your comment about the browser and explorer.exe... well, you're pretty much wrong with that one... remove internet explorer from windows (which is not a trivial task) and open up windows explorer... type in a url and you're there.
and it all comes down to the fact that it's all tied very deeply together and almost everything in windows runs off of each other. that's the issue. so maybe IE is broken because part of the OS is broken. either way... i think you get my point.
ok, then how about this... IE is completely busted because of a spyware infection that broke it. try to do auto updates and even that program doesn't work... because it uses IE.
Slashdot Mirror
this much i know... see my response above. i know a bit more about biology than some great computer scientists.
and again, that proves that microevolution happens... now take evolution on a much larger scale... explain it, show evidence...
ok, evolution on a small scale exists, this i know. that's microevolution... survival of the fittest...
now how about macroevolution...
you didn't touch on that one. the evidence that the world was not created by intelligent design...
for the record, i've actually got a degree in evolutionary bio... so i know a bit about how evolution works...
mothers and fathers rearing children is not the main reason people get married in teh united states anymore. wake up, smell the coffee, it's good isn't it?
do 2 apes get married before they have kids? no. do all heterosexual couples get married to have kids? no. i find this funny in the context of the story about the debate in kansas between scientists and creationists.
family has nothing to do with a man, a woman, and a child. family has to do with people who love each other. apparently you haven't realized that a man can have the same love for another man as a different man can have for a woman. is it a disease? no. is it wrong? no. but men and woman in this country have taken marriage to mean "let's get married because you're pregnant" [2 years pass] "i loev him, not you... let's get a divorce". or how about... "i'm drunk, let's be silly and get married"... [wakes up next morning married] "shit, this ruined my public image... let's have it anulled because i was drunk and stupid" [2 days pass] marriage anulled.
there is no sanctity in marriage in teh united state, i hate to tell you. it's a fact that a higher percentage of gay couples (man-man or woman-woman) have been together longer than heterosexual couples who have been married. so don't give me this archaic crap about the "nuclear" family (or should i say "nucular"?).
give me concrete scientific proof that one side is completely wrong. it doesn't exist. scientific theories exist, but concrete proof does not.
many of the world's greatest scientists believe in a god of some sort.
as for life being created, how did it happen? if humans were truly evolved completely from apes, without the help of anything else, how do apes still exist? in fact, how do any other animals still exist? or is your scientific theory that one day the world will be nothing but humans?
please enlighten me to your concrete evidence. i'm really interested in learning.
disclaimer: i am not a practicing christian, nor am i even remotely a creationist. i am just a curious mind interested in hearing all sides of things before making up my mind about anything. concrete evidence is the only thing that will sway me in one direction or the other, and since religion has no concrete evidence, science surely must... but i have yet to see any.
The news had come out in the First World War
The bloody Red Baron was flying once more
The Allied command ignored all of its men
And called on Snoopy to do it again.
Twas the night before Christmas, 40 below
When Snoopy went up in search of his foe
He spied the Red Baron, fiercely they fought
With ice on his wings Snoopy knew he was caught.
Christmas bells those Christmas bells
Ring out from the land
Asking peace of all the world
And good will to man
The Baron had Snoopy dead in his sights
He reached for the trigger to pull it up tight
Why he didn't shoot, well, we'll never know
Or was it the bells from the village below.
Christmas bells those Christmas bells
Ringing through the land
Bringing peace to all the world
And good will to man
The Baron made Snoopy fly to the Rhine
And forced him to land behind the enemy lines
Snoopy was certain that this was the end
When the Baron cried out, "Merry Christmas, my friend"
The Baron then offered a holiday toast
And Snoopy, our hero, saluted his host
And then with a roar they were both on their way
Each knowing they'd meet on some other day.
Christmas bells those Christmas bells
Ringing through the land
Bringing peace to all the world
And good will to man
Christmas bells those Christmas bells
Ringing through the land
Bringing peace to all the world
And good will to man
i know it's not the RIAA, but radio doesn't play the variety of songs it used to. however, i also don't believe it's entirely the media companies... i am pretty sure the RIAA has a role in this as well... of course no one will ever know for sure...
i don't mind paying for a CD, in fact, i do so regularly... however, i have one issue with who gets paid... RIAA. why should they get money? you also don't address the issue of what percentage goes to all of those people in the chain. i believe the artist, the person doing the most work, the person without whom the CD would not exist, gets less than 1% of what i pay for a CD.
you point about people buying records because they wanted to listen to them at their own convenience is true... however, you are wrong in assuming that if they had the ability to record off the radio, they would. i remember when cassette tapes were big, people would request songs on the radio so they could make a mix tape. you couldn't do that when only vinyl existed.
i believe the artists should be compensated... i don't record cd's or pirate music. i will download a few songs from an artist that i want to hear more of and then depending on how much i like it, i'll go buy the album. otherwise, i generally get rid of the files. it's like a preview. can't really do that. and back when only vinyl was available, you couldn't make a recording of your friend's record. concerts may have been bootlegged, but it wasn't easy to make copies of it.
artists are not overcompensated by the industry. they're overcompensated by everything else that goes along with being in the industry. that's how the industry can get away with giving them the shaft when it comes to paying them. however, what the industry does is give the artist a false sense of luxury. MC hammer (remember him) went on spending binges when he was popular. he disappeared quickly and when he was no longer in the spotlight, he ran out of money. is it all the industry's fault? no. did they give him a false sense of security? most likely. if he got paid what he should've for his work, would he have been in such bad financial state? definitely not. and yes, i do agree that artists today all suck and should not be picked up by the industry. the industry is looking for pretty faces, nothing more, nothing less. they don't care about talent.
creating a hit can take minutes, or it can take months. if it takes months, it generally means that someone is purposely trying to create a hit. if it takes minutes, they're just making good music and have talent. you'd be surprised how many of those great songs from the 60's and 70's were written in under an hour. those are the people who deserve the money, not the songwriters the industry hires to give people like britney a big radio hit. those people are in it for the money, not the art. they lose credibility in my opinion. however, your argument against performing music is flawed. if the artist can only create it in the studio with all that processing and producing, how can they be considered a true musician? ashley simpson is popular, that's a fact. ashley simpson is post-processed, also a fact. ashley simpson, when performing live, lip syncs. fact. why should i give her money? she did nothing but sing and it's not a good voice because it was created for her by a computer. i should give whoever wrote the program to fix her voice the money.
a lot of major label artists are hypocrits. in fact, most of them are. they're all about being anti-establishment, fuck the police, fuck the gov't... but i'm with the RIAA. however, there are also a lot of major label artists who are anti-establishment and advertise that through their music... tom petty's last dj album for instance... full of anti-corporate messages, released by warner. many major label artists are also in favor of file sharing. the indie artists are a different story... but i'm not talking the "indie" style of music because that means nothing. modest mouse is major label... t
now put apache in the hands of people who know nothing about computers...
spyware is not as much a result of vulnerabilities as it is about the users downloading something blindly and blindly clicking links...
that's because linux and firefox are not mainstream... if they became mainstream, people would find ways to get spyware on it. as is... firefox without any added extensions is vulnerable to pop-under ads.
but wouldn't it be funny if one of his kids hacked his paranoia induced security...
if you are implying that the judges of the supreme court for massachusetts over-stepped the majority opinion of the population of massachusetts, you are wrong. what they did was take the state constitution and looked to see where it defined marriage as that of a man and a woman. it didn't. they then went and said that any laws stating that marriage between a man and a woman were unconstitutional according to their state constitution. just because the majority disagrees with their decision doesn't mean they're wrong.
the issue of gay marriage is far far more than hurt feelings, uncomfortable situations and disapproval of others. it has to do with tax rights, inheritance rights, the right to visit your partner in the hospital. our country has a very strict separation of church and state. just because christians believe that gays are sinners by definition does not mean that the government believes so. oh yeah, and that separate of church and state is in the FEDERAL constitution. it is not harmful to children to be raised by a gay couple. that has not be proven, nor will it ever be since it's false. what it does do is teach children the ability to accept people who are different, something it seems like you need to learn to do yourself...
i hate the mpaa and riaa just as much as the next guy. however, i don't download music, i prefer to have the actual cd. i'm a big music fan, i'm not about to stop buying music just because the industry sucks.
the largest demograph of downloaders are teenagers and college students. that's a fact. now, while i can't prove otherwise, i do work in a college. almost every student i know (and i know quite a bit) downloads music so taht they don't have to buy the album. now they can't be caught because it's all internet campus stuff that they use to grab the songs, but it's still keeping them from buying the album.
you're a musician. you write a song. it's not perfect, but it's recorded. you don't want it heard by the general public. someone leaks it. it gets downloaded. they took something that belongs to you. your art. artists (which includes musicians, movie directors, actors, etc) have a right to keep their art private. maybe the only way a filmmaker wants his movie to be seen is in theatres. i think that's a pretty good analogy. in fact, that's right on the ball to what you're arguing. it's like watching a taped stage production. you don't get the same thing out of it as you would if you were there. maybe for some, but you're not getting the full art of what's happening. you're stealing someone else's intellectual property. so forget the prices even. it's the fact that they want their art to be viewed or heard in a certain way and they don't want people to have the unfinished product, which is what happened with dave matthews and the lillywhite sessions. dave just happens to be a bit more liberal in his music than metallica, although i do think he was still pretty upset about it.
i'm actually pretty sure that if a band plays a cover tune and they're being paid for their performance, they have to pay royalties on it. of course, i heard this from someone who doesn't know much about the industry, so it's probably wrong.
it comes down to profitting from the song. if someone makes money from your song, you should get something out of it for publishing the song. are they making money solely by performing it or by selling recordings?
in your scenario... once the recording surfaces, you own the copyright to that one song. if the recording is caught being traded or even sold, you can sue for royalties and copyright infringement.
ok, so go back to my apple comparison... or how about a different one, like gaming consoles...
the item does not exist on the market yet. but it's there. the manufacturers are holding out to create a huge demand for their new console (PS3, xbox2, whatever). they're sitting on the stockpile in their warehouses waiting for a release date a few months down the road. some young gamer just can't deal with this anymore and absolutely needs to get his hands on one. but, this is a gamer who sees the possibility of capitalizing off of this. so he comes up with a scheme and manages to rip off a small truckload of these devices from the warehouse and continues to sell them, keeping one for himself.
as for what you are saying about the music or movie not being available for sale... well... it will be available for sale. adn everyone who gets their hands on a bootleg copy can be assumed to not be purchasing a legal copy. it's intellectual property as well. who that intellectual property actually belongs to, that's another story. but let's say, for argument's sake, it belongs to the artist. an independent musician, not affiliated with the RIAA at all, has managed to become very popular. he's about to release a new album. there's a huge demand for this. someone manages to get a copy. now this musician's only income is through the sale of his albums, at prices lower than major label releases. the person who gets the copy then goes and continues to share it on every filesharing network he can find. pretty soon millions of people have access to that music. so now there are that many more people who are not going to pay for the album, for the rights to the music. the musician cannot afford this as it is his only source of income. the reason you create the demand ahead of time is to make sure you can afford your overhead costs. the musician spent lots of money recording the album, printing up nice packaging, etc. now too few people buy it because it's already floating around on the internet before it was even released. he just threw away all that money because of some kid who just couldn't want.
patience is a virtue my friend. apparently you lack it. i suggest you find some or else you'll have some serious problems...
no, there's no technical reason a dvd can't be released at the same time as the theatrical release. and you cannot compare this to concert recordings because anything can happen at a concert. you can't release a copy of soemthing that hasn't happened yet. i do agree, however, that depending on the movie, the industry can be capitalizing off of this much more... however, they can't get people into theatres if they're selling the DVD at the same time. instead, they should wait about a month after it's done playing (or 2 months after the theatrical release, something on that idea) to release a plain DVD with no special features. then a few months later, release a special edition (without announcing that it'll happen ahead of time). a lot of people are suckers that they'll buy both...
the same scenarios can be used in the software world as well... no, i am not a fan of MS, but i also don't see a reaon why software has to be free. in the whole metallica/napster thing, they wanted the album to be released in a certain manner. but people got ahold of it before the release date and shared in on napster. metallica made the mistake of making it about money, but for a lot of indie artists (true indie, not bands like modest mouse) it really is about the money. U2 refused to allow their album to be sold on itunes as separate tracks because it's a piece of art. the days of bands creating albums for the concept, for the flow of all the songs are not over, nor will they ever be (thank god). when the industry stops selling hard copies of albums, i stop buying music. granted, the industry does need to adapt to changes, but stealing someone's art (which is what copyright infringement comes down to) is still stealing. it's like an artist paints something and is waiting
i'll address everything one by one.
copyright law addresses the bootleg issue. most bands don't have an official policy, but when you buy a ticket, it generally says you cannot bring in taping equipment.
supply and demand doesn't run the market when it comes to stolen goods.
yes, the law addresses works that are not yet released. no, they cannot be purchased. you should wait patiently for them to be released. is it that hard for you?
ok, so they make them wait and create a demand... when the supply comes, you have your supply.
ok, so say the powerbooks are stolen from apple's warehouse. does that make it better?
either way, you're wrong. you are stealing something that belongs to someone else. and you're doing it because you want it that bad. if you wanted sex that bad, would you rape the nearest girl wearing provocative clothing? it's very similar. you can't argue that the huge demand they create makes it ok to steal.
the copyright belongs to the same people who own the copyright to the songs. the bands that allow taping have permission from their record labels to allow it. of course a lot of those bands also either don't make a ton of money from their albums or they have the pull and following to basically tell the record company that they're going to allow it and there's nothing they can do.
yes, this is true... which is why the recording of the concert is copyrighted material. that's what i meant.
a concert is copyrighted and it is illegal to tape or trade recordings of a concert unless the band has a specific policy giving permission to do so.
this is covered under normal copyright law, unless people trade a soundboard recording of a concert that is going to be released commercially.
i happen to know a bit about this since i am actively (or was actively) involved with trading bootlegs. it is copyrighted unless the band gives rights for free taping and trading of their shows (such as phish or the dave matthews band or a slew of others). this is not a "pre-release". this is a recording of a concert. if a band releases that concert, the audience copies are inferior (in many people's minds) to the soundboard copy that the band would release. phish had a clause when they started their livephish downloads (all shows available for a pay-per-download within 2 days after the show) that didn't allow any trading of that show, no matter what the source (aud of sbd). they changed it to allow audience recordings. they, of course, are no longer in existence, however, i think they had one of the more "free" taping/trading policies. one of the only things that all these policies have in common is that you cannot offer for sale these recordings. and many record stores violate that by selling them. i have reported many record stores to bands and will continue to do so as they run the risk of causing the band to decide to stop allowing the free taping/trading.
your comment about pre-releases being the free market at work is wrong. the blackmarket can be considered the free market at work as well... stolen items from stores or homes. would you consider that legal? someone steals your new plasma TV from your house. you paid $3000 (or whatever they cost) for it. sells it on the black market for $1000. someone buys it because it's a great deal. they just bought a stolen item. the same works for buying a bootleg dvd or a bootleg concert.
and yes, the laws of supply and demand are in place here... but the biggest reason people illegally download stuff is because it's too expensive to pay for. i, for one, prefer to buy my music and have no downloaded anything illegal in quite some time. and a lot of the bands i listen to are better live and i trade/download their shows because they allow it. if they don't allow it, i don't trade them. it's as simple as that. and the reason they work up a "huge" demand for their works is so that they can get people to go out and pay for them. it's called marketing. apple does it too, but would you pay someone for a brand new powerbook they stole from an apple store? think about that one...
ok, and when their way doesn't work because activex is busted...
i don't think you're seeing my point. they'er using an insecure, very buggy method to install security patches. doesn't make much sense to me...
and no, i'm not just a slashdot MS basher, i like some of their products... XP doesn't happen to be one of them, it's a big step down from 2000.
and without using windows update or auto update, how do you know which updates you need?
so here's the root of this argument... windows requires a microsoft product in order to fix itself. a buggy piece of software requires a piece of software from a company known for making buggy pieces of software. activex, one of the biggest security issues with windows and IE is required to install security patches to windows and IE.
requiring the use of the browser or not (and i realize this has nothing to do with the argument at hand, but had this been stated much sooner, the argument never would have occurred), an insecure means should not be used to install security updates. and it should not be the only manner with which to install security updates. same argument goes for using msi's, which can only be run in normal mode (biggest issue i have with the way MS packaged the anti-spyware software).
if you're the expert you think you are (and you seem to be standing alone with your train of thought), why don't you explain how it works.
as for your comment about the browser and explorer.exe... well, you're pretty much wrong with that one... remove internet explorer from windows (which is not a trivial task) and open up windows explorer... type in a url and you're there.
actually, windows update is all activex. i am pretty sure auto update is the same thing, just run through the OS instead of the browser.
also... the browser and explorer.exe are the same thing. auto update is run through explorer.exe... think about this one...
and it all comes down to the fact that it's all tied very deeply together and almost everything in windows runs off of each other. that's the issue. so maybe IE is broken because part of the OS is broken. either way... i think you get my point.
ok, then how about this... IE is completely busted because of a spyware infection that broke it. try to do auto updates and even that program doesn't work... because it uses IE.