OK, but suppose these amateur musicians play a little gig at the local town hall. People like it. They ask for this person to record a CD at home and they'll buy it next time they play. Sounds good. At the gig after this though, some douchebag is outside selling the amateur musicians CD's for half the price the artist was selling them. How is that fair?
Or even more topically, some douchebag offers to give the amateur musicians music to anyone who wants it for no cost. Again, how is that fair?
I think we're starting to lose focus on the issue here. I originally envisaged some imaginary software developer working for an imaginary software development company. Let's call him Bob and say he works for CopySoft. CopySoft makes their money by developing useful software tools for other companies for a price. The software that Bob writes is protected by law to make sure that other companies can't just copy these products and use them for free (think Torrents), or sell them on for a profit (think people selling you burned CDs for a few pounds/dollars). CopySoft relies on the work from their employees being protected, so they can get paid. The companies that they supply software to rely on these laws to ensure other companies don't benefit from software that they paid to have developed. After all, why the hell should they pay and everyone benefits?
Starting to see my point? Lots of/. readers seem to be under the impression that voluntary payment for software (and music and movies) if copyright were abolished would allow the world to continue without any problems whatsoever. I'm certain that it wouldn't.
What the hell are you talking about? Use your PC and burner however you wish, just don't give other people copyrighted material that they're supposed to pay for. Is the distinction between these two ideas so hard for you to grasp?
You don't have the right to do whatever you want on your PC, trust me on this. Try finding yourself some child porn online, or try breaking into the restricted databases of a national security agency (you can even pick the country and agency yourself). When they haul you away in handcuffs let's see how far your "How dare you tell me what I can do with my own PC" bullshit gets you.
Why should an artist have to rely on fans to donate voluntarily? You impose your own perceptions on what is an acceptable system as a consumer. If an artist wants everyone to pay £X for listening to their song or using their program, why in the hell shouldn't they be allowed, and backed by law, to do so? No-one forces you to use their products, yet you have the audacity to dictate terms to them. "Your work will be protected in no way at all, you will be rewarded as and when people see fit." You have a choice to either enjoy their work on their terms or don't enjoy it at all. You can argue about what copyright was and wasn't designed to do until the cows come home, but what you propose is roughly equivalent to "Nothing you create belongs to you, it belongs to everyone and your recognition and reward is subject to the generosity of the people at large". As a software developer I sure as shit don't want a world where my work is considered as public property as soon as I give it to one person.
I completely share your opinion that the recording industry and the "middlemen" profit through little effort or talent in most cases, and that the whole industry has become puffed up, inflated and greedy. Still, the fundamental principle I'm trying to champion here is that people deserve to be rewarded for their work. It's their right to set the price that they sell their work for, and if it's too high people shouldn't buy it. Instead they rely on someone, somewhere having bought it and then giving it away fro free because it's so easy to do that today.
But if you don't like the terms you think it's your right to take it?
So if the price is too high for you (i.e. above zero) then you have a right to disregard any considerations of fairness to the author, or rewardign them for their work? How did you come to this amazing belief? From not having enough money to go to the movies, or buy a CD and thinking "Fuck it I can just take it"? That's pretty close to sneaking into a cinema or putting a CD in your pocket in a shop.
And the servers are running on what kind of software? I'm viewing this on a PC running an OS based on what kind of software? The CGI effects in the movies on TPB are produced on what kind of software?
Oh that's right. Not Open Source software. Just because OSS can make good contributions doesn't mean that the world could get by on just OSS.
Without software copyright, people will still write software. It does useful stuff.
When will they write it? In their spare time? Will it consistently be of a high enough standard to use commercially when it's produced for anything other than money? What about when it goes wrong or becomes outdated? Is there sufficient incentive for the author to update it if he's got a real job to go to?
Cause the rest of us are over here clinging to beliefs like copyright is supposed to exist to encourage people to create works that they otherwise would not..
How can you write this in the same breath as your posts above? How do you think copyright "encourages people to create works that they otherwise would not" except through ensuring that they get paid for their work? This isn't about your right to copy files on your own computer, it's about you not having the right to distribute these files to others.
It doesn't matter how much you love doing something, if you don't get paid for it then you have to get a proper job, unless you sustain yourself with air and love.
You think it's your "civil right" to take someone else's work and give it away for free? When the original creator asks for money in exchange for their work they're not fucking robbing you, they're offering you the choice of paying the price they ask, or not enjoying whatever it is they're offering. You do not have the right to own anything you want simply because it's easy to get it for free.
By copying and distributing the work of others you reduce the income they get in reward for their work. Take it to the extreme: if everyone in the world got hold of movies, music or software for free, why would artists and developers continue producing original works if they're receiving no reward for it? A warm fuzzy feeling that people like your creation doesn't put a roof over your head, nor does it put food on the table.
It's a very small minority of the IT industry that works in creating and selling propriatory software - less then 10% - so for most in the IT business no more pripriatory software won't affect their work at all.
Are you fucking kidding me? 10% might be into developing non-free software, but about 90% of computer users run non-free software. Get rid of it and you have no more Windows. No more Office. Dozens of other examples but these two alone would significantly affect a massive amount of organisations.
It's a good opportunity for you so it's good for everyone? Wow, be more selfish if you can.
I'm looking for a well written and researched piece that can tell me why TPB and other such sites are good for society, not some crap "I just want stuff for free" argument.
Yeah I wondered this too. It leads me to believe that the actual content being shared is influencing peoples' perceptions of the case. The MPAA and RIAA turn themselves into ogres in people's eyes by hounding individuals and forcing them to pay outrageous fines for copyright infringement. Thus people see any action by them as evil.
Now suppose for a minute TPB was largely used to host torrents for child pronography files. Would everyone be leaping to their defense quite as vocally? I doubt it, but because it's "only" some movies, some music, some software etc. that's being illegally copied, and these formats are under the protection of moronic organisations that seem to design every action to cast themselves in a bad light, and suddenly everyone is outraged at this verdict.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, some might believe that digital information should be free for everyone and there should be no restrictions on copying music and movies, but how the hell are the artists and industry supposed to keep producing if everyone get's their stuff for free? Voluntary contributions?
Go to the site. Browse the torrents on offer. See how many seeders and leechers there are illegally exchanging videos and music (and software now I think about it). I'd say it was pretty clear that most people go to TPB to get stuff for free instead of paying for it.
I mean technically TPB doesn't actually host any copyright materials at all, and technically the system can be used to exchange legal files for honest purposes.
On the other hand, TPB is used mostly (almost exclusively I'd say) to exchange music and videos illegally. There are methods in place to remove illegal material, but for every torrent you remove ten more rise in its place. No-one should be able to say "TPB was designed to facilitate legal file-sharing" without adding "...but in reality it's just a site to get movies and music for free".
Whatever your views, this ruling (unless successfully appealed) has just set a huge precident for future court cases. I'm sure the prosecutors are already taking aim at other large torrent sites...
I think it's safe to assume that a significant portion of people in advertising, or those writing puff piece reports for Microsoft, have no qualms about being "liberal" with the truth. It's up to you to decide if that makes them bad people or if they're just doing what's necessary to work in today's world.
People expect a certain amount basic honesty from others.
Can't say I agree with that. People lie, bend the truth, exaggerate, mislead and deliberately confuse every day.
Is it to unreasonable to expect a company to not outright lie, consitently on facts? Sure, of course Vista is great and will improve your life. But don't claim it boots in 2 seconds when it doesn't. Their is sales talk and their is lying and there is a difference.
True enough, but are any of the facts in the report actually lies? I'm sure the prices quoted are correct (at the time of printing), it just seems they're not quite comparing the same things. This isn't a lie, it's just being misleading or distorting facts. Neither are really lies, but you would expect more from an unbiased source. The report writer is anything but unbiased though. That's my point. Mostly.
Well, the rest of my point is this: It neither surprises nor annoys me that reports like this are produced because I'm intelligent enough to accept this kind of biased information exists, and deal with it. I don't read this and think "OK, never shall I buy an Apple product!". I assimilate it as a data point, but tag it with "take with a pinch of salt". A big pinch as it happens. I'm not justify bullshittery of this kind, nor am I defending the writers or Microsoft. I'm just trying to clarify exactly what people seem so bloody surprised about...
The iPod bubble will only burst when the iPod competitors actually produce a quality product. I keep trying to use other products but they all do some random annoying little things that prvent me from using them.
Really? All of them? I'm pretty sure I could find an iPod competitor that had all the features I wanted at a better price without any annoying bugs or "features". Maybe I have lower standards.
Luckily my mobile phone has a decent music player anyway - which raises an interesting point. I think most people's phones can play music these days. Is it poorly implemented music software, lack of support (hardware/software), lack of awareness or just plain old "I have to look cool with my iPod at the gym"?
Who was honestly expecting an unbiased report on Apple products when it says on the first page "Sponsor: Microsoft"?
Did you think Microsoft would approve publication of something they paid for that didn't put their own products in a better light than Apple's? People seem shocked by something that (to me) should have been clear from the very start. Or am I being too simplistic?
Wow, very insightful, particularly the paragraph about no sex in games and the rarity of swearwords.
It used to be the same with TV I suppose, I mean the first gay kiss on British TV happened decades after the first television broadcast, and swearing used to be a lot rarer than it is these days. Like some of the poster's above have said, whatever the next big thing is it'll probably take the focus off games and allow a whole new generation of sensationalist media reports to flourish. I can see it now:
"3DTV allows ultra-realistic porn and violonce into your front room! Your kids can watch a man be murdered and sodomised as if it were actually happening! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
"Virtual reality - turning your children into murderers, rapists and Democrats. More after The Simpsons".
Slashdot Mirror
OK, but suppose these amateur musicians play a little gig at the local town hall. People like it. They ask for this person to record a CD at home and they'll buy it next time they play. Sounds good. At the gig after this though, some douchebag is outside selling the amateur musicians CD's for half the price the artist was selling them. How is that fair?
Or even more topically, some douchebag offers to give the amateur musicians music to anyone who wants it for no cost. Again, how is that fair?
I think we're starting to lose focus on the issue here. I originally envisaged some imaginary software developer working for an imaginary software development company. Let's call him Bob and say he works for CopySoft. CopySoft makes their money by developing useful software tools for other companies for a price. The software that Bob writes is protected by law to make sure that other companies can't just copy these products and use them for free (think Torrents), or sell them on for a profit (think people selling you burned CDs for a few pounds/dollars). CopySoft relies on the work from their employees being protected, so they can get paid. The companies that they supply software to rely on these laws to ensure other companies don't benefit from software that they paid to have developed. After all, why the hell should they pay and everyone benefits?
/. readers seem to be under the impression that voluntary payment for software (and music and movies) if copyright were abolished would allow the world to continue without any problems whatsoever. I'm certain that it wouldn't.
Starting to see my point? Lots of
What the hell are you talking about? Use your PC and burner however you wish, just don't give other people copyrighted material that they're supposed to pay for. Is the distinction between these two ideas so hard for you to grasp?
You don't have the right to do whatever you want on your PC, trust me on this. Try finding yourself some child porn online, or try breaking into the restricted databases of a national security agency (you can even pick the country and agency yourself). When they haul you away in handcuffs let's see how far your "How dare you tell me what I can do with my own PC" bullshit gets you.
Why should an artist have to rely on fans to donate voluntarily? You impose your own perceptions on what is an acceptable system as a consumer. If an artist wants everyone to pay £X for listening to their song or using their program, why in the hell shouldn't they be allowed, and backed by law, to do so? No-one forces you to use their products, yet you have the audacity to dictate terms to them. "Your work will be protected in no way at all, you will be rewarded as and when people see fit." You have a choice to either enjoy their work on their terms or don't enjoy it at all. You can argue about what copyright was and wasn't designed to do until the cows come home, but what you propose is roughly equivalent to "Nothing you create belongs to you, it belongs to everyone and your recognition and reward is subject to the generosity of the people at large". As a software developer I sure as shit don't want a world where my work is considered as public property as soon as I give it to one person.
Thankyou. At least someone sees the distinction between digital and "real-world" property.
Too many people here are spouting crap along the lines of "property is theft".
I completely share your opinion that the recording industry and the "middlemen" profit through little effort or talent in most cases, and that the whole industry has become puffed up, inflated and greedy. Still, the fundamental principle I'm trying to champion here is that people deserve to be rewarded for their work. It's their right to set the price that they sell their work for, and if it's too high people shouldn't buy it. Instead they rely on someone, somewhere having bought it and then giving it away fro free because it's so easy to do that today.
But if you don't like the terms you think it's your right to take it?
So if the price is too high for you (i.e. above zero) then you have a right to disregard any considerations of fairness to the author, or rewardign them for their work? How did you come to this amazing belief? From not having enough money to go to the movies, or buy a CD and thinking "Fuck it I can just take it"? That's pretty close to sneaking into a cinema or putting a CD in your pocket in a shop.
And the servers are running on what kind of software? I'm viewing this on a PC running an OS based on what kind of software? The CGI effects in the movies on TPB are produced on what kind of software?
Oh that's right. Not Open Source software. Just because OSS can make good contributions doesn't mean that the world could get by on just OSS.
Without software copyright, people will still write software. It does useful stuff.
When will they write it? In their spare time? Will it consistently be of a high enough standard to use commercially when it's produced for anything other than money? What about when it goes wrong or becomes outdated? Is there sufficient incentive for the author to update it if he's got a real job to go to?
Cause the rest of us are over here clinging to beliefs like copyright is supposed to exist to encourage people to create works that they otherwise would not..
How can you write this in the same breath as your posts above? How do you think copyright "encourages people to create works that they otherwise would not" except through ensuring that they get paid for their work? This isn't about your right to copy files on your own computer, it's about you not having the right to distribute these files to others.
It doesn't matter how much you love doing something, if you don't get paid for it then you have to get a proper job, unless you sustain yourself with air and love.
You think it's your "civil right" to take someone else's work and give it away for free? When the original creator asks for money in exchange for their work they're not fucking robbing you, they're offering you the choice of paying the price they ask, or not enjoying whatever it is they're offering. You do not have the right to own anything you want simply because it's easy to get it for free.
By copying and distributing the work of others you reduce the income they get in reward for their work. Take it to the extreme: if everyone in the world got hold of movies, music or software for free, why would artists and developers continue producing original works if they're receiving no reward for it? A warm fuzzy feeling that people like your creation doesn't put a roof over your head, nor does it put food on the table.
It's a very small minority of the IT industry that works in creating and selling propriatory software - less then 10% - so for most in the IT business no more pripriatory software won't affect their work at all.
Are you fucking kidding me? 10% might be into developing non-free software, but about 90% of computer users run non-free software. Get rid of it and you have no more Windows. No more Office. Dozens of other examples but these two alone would significantly affect a massive amount of organisations.
It's a good opportunity for you so it's good for everyone? Wow, be more selfish if you can.
I'm looking for a well written and researched piece that can tell me why TPB and other such sites are good for society, not some crap "I just want stuff for free" argument.
Yeah I wondered this too. It leads me to believe that the actual content being shared is influencing peoples' perceptions of the case. The MPAA and RIAA turn themselves into ogres in people's eyes by hounding individuals and forcing them to pay outrageous fines for copyright infringement. Thus people see any action by them as evil.
Now suppose for a minute TPB was largely used to host torrents for child pronography files. Would everyone be leaping to their defense quite as vocally? I doubt it, but because it's "only" some movies, some music, some software etc. that's being illegally copied, and these formats are under the protection of moronic organisations that seem to design every action to cast themselves in a bad light, and suddenly everyone is outraged at this verdict.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, some might believe that digital information should be free for everyone and there should be no restrictions on copying music and movies, but how the hell are the artists and industry supposed to keep producing if everyone get's their stuff for free? Voluntary contributions?
Go to the site. Browse the torrents on offer. See how many seeders and leechers there are illegally exchanging videos and music (and software now I think about it). I'd say it was pretty clear that most people go to TPB to get stuff for free instead of paying for it.
I mean technically TPB doesn't actually host any copyright materials at all, and technically the system can be used to exchange legal files for honest purposes.
On the other hand, TPB is used mostly (almost exclusively I'd say) to exchange music and videos illegally. There are methods in place to remove illegal material, but for every torrent you remove ten more rise in its place. No-one should be able to say "TPB was designed to facilitate legal file-sharing" without adding "...but in reality it's just a site to get movies and music for free".
Whatever your views, this ruling (unless successfully appealed) has just set a huge precident for future court cases. I'm sure the prosecutors are already taking aim at other large torrent sites...
It doesn't imply that Macs are immune, it flat-out says that there aren't any viruses out for Macs and this is completely true.
Oh really? This story would seem to contradict what you say.
I think it's safe to assume that a significant portion of people in advertising, or those writing puff piece reports for Microsoft, have no qualms about being "liberal" with the truth. It's up to you to decide if that makes them bad people or if they're just doing what's necessary to work in today's world.
The BBC aren't owned by the Government. It's operated and regulated by the BBC Trust, and it was originally set up by a bunch of telecom companies.
People expect a certain amount basic honesty from others.
Can't say I agree with that. People lie, bend the truth, exaggerate, mislead and deliberately confuse every day.
Is it to unreasonable to expect a company to not outright lie, consitently on facts? Sure, of course Vista is great and will improve your life. But don't claim it boots in 2 seconds when it doesn't. Their is sales talk and their is lying and there is a difference.
True enough, but are any of the facts in the report actually lies? I'm sure the prices quoted are correct (at the time of printing), it just seems they're not quite comparing the same things. This isn't a lie, it's just being misleading or distorting facts. Neither are really lies, but you would expect more from an unbiased source. The report writer is anything but unbiased though. That's my point. Mostly.
Well, the rest of my point is this: It neither surprises nor annoys me that reports like this are produced because I'm intelligent enough to accept this kind of biased information exists, and deal with it. I don't read this and think "OK, never shall I buy an Apple product!". I assimilate it as a data point, but tag it with "take with a pinch of salt". A big pinch as it happens. I'm not justify bullshittery of this kind, nor am I defending the writers or Microsoft. I'm just trying to clarify exactly what people seem so bloody surprised about...
The iPod bubble will only burst when the iPod competitors actually produce a quality product. I keep trying to use other products but they all do some random annoying little things that prvent me from using them.
Really? All of them? I'm pretty sure I could find an iPod competitor that had all the features I wanted at a better price without any annoying bugs or "features". Maybe I have lower standards.
Luckily my mobile phone has a decent music player anyway - which raises an interesting point. I think most people's phones can play music these days. Is it poorly implemented music software, lack of support (hardware/software), lack of awareness or just plain old "I have to look cool with my iPod at the gym"?
Who was honestly expecting an unbiased report on Apple products when it says on the first page "Sponsor: Microsoft"?
Did you think Microsoft would approve publication of something they paid for that didn't put their own products in a better light than Apple's? People seem shocked by something that (to me) should have been clear from the very start. Or am I being too simplistic?
I think people would be happier if the ideals of Amateurism made a comeback.
Particularly in the field of pornography. I'm sick of paying inflated prices for rubbish movies.
Wow, very insightful, particularly the paragraph about no sex in games and the rarity of swearwords.
It used to be the same with TV I suppose, I mean the first gay kiss on British TV happened decades after the first television broadcast, and swearing used to be a lot rarer than it is these days. Like some of the poster's above have said, whatever the next big thing is it'll probably take the focus off games and allow a whole new generation of sensationalist media reports to flourish. I can see it now:
"3DTV allows ultra-realistic porn and violonce into your front room! Your kids can watch a man be murdered and sodomised as if it were actually happening! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
"Virtual reality - turning your children into murderers, rapists and Democrats. More after The Simpsons".