According to people who study such things, the XBox was originally released at near cost (or even below) in order to drive marketshare.
The Courier could have been released the same way, at a price point lower than the iPad. Yes, we could all make jokes about the Courier Store, and Bing, and Zune, and all the rest of the stuff they'd do to cripple a great idea. But what if it was as open as any other PC platform? Sure, the app store might be lame, and high priced, and of the three dozen apps half are buggy nagware, and one gives you a virus. But if you could put your own OS on it, tell me you wouldn't buy it in a heartbeat over the iPad.
Because it doesn't have to play the movie across the split. Imagine opening the Courier up to an angle similar to a netbook, resting one half on the tabletop, with the other at a comfortable viewing angle.
You watch the movie in 16:9 on the top screen only while the other screen is dark, conserving batteries and simply awaiting your touch in order to present a full playback menu.
I suspect there would have been a "netbook mode" that would have had the lower screen acting as a touch-keyboard for more traditional computer-like use. This would simply have been another application in that mode.
Just for reference sake, her name is Tamara Hope. She's actually quite pretty.
I have no doubt that she's pretty, but not when rolled in bleached flour, told to stare unblinkingly into the lens, and filmed through a double soft filter. It works when you're trying to create a "mostly human" look, or if you're trying to fry trout. Otherwise it's just creepy.
By "marketing blunders", do they mean Palm's "The Most Pale Woman in the World" campaign? Because I've gotta say, she really didn't sell me on a Palm, or anything else.
She looked more like an extra from the Lord of the Rings (generic elf maiden #38) than a spokesmodel for a technical product.
You just gave me really good idea for an app... a magic 8 ball that uses the accelerometer on the iphone, and all of the answers relating directly to whether or not your app will get approved for the app store. Unfortunately, I doubt that this app would get approved for the app store, either. oh well.
It's made from fast growing wood that is grown on farms for the express purpose of making paper, so it's not like they're not chopping down old growth forests. And offices around the country routinely recycle their paper, which make a whiter pulp that requires even less bleach than raw wood.
It's just not that big of a deal to me if it gets the point across better.
I certainly don't print just to print, but I don't feel like I have to stop and pity the poor trees that gave their lives for my TPS cover sheets.
The last time I checked, SSL certificates that chain back to a CA in all the major browsers weren't free.
There are several answers to that. First, certificates that are chained back to a CA aren't required for internal encryption. You are perfectly free to create your own root certificate, and install that root on all the machines you own. From then on, any certificates you create you sign with your own CA, and you can then verify them in any of your machines.
Second, SSL is only one protocol out of many. You don't even need certificates if you're using other protocols. For example, if you're using IPSec, you can use a pre-shared key (PSK). No certificates required. WPA2 doesn't require a certificate.
Remember, certificates != keys. Certificates are just a way to pass public keys around in a fashion that lets you place a bit of trust in them.
a) Windows encryption is known to be flawed, and using a known-bad encrpytion system for this sort of thing probably counts as negligence.
Citation needed.
b) Windows encrpytion has back doors, and... see above.
Non bat-shit crazy conspiracy theory citation needed.
c) Anyone implementing encrpytion at the flick of a switch without properly planning for it will very likely regret it when it comes to file recovery, backup use, etc.
Yes, application level encryption of those sensitive fields is generally more secure than trying to encrypt data over every wire and at every disk. But how you manage the keys, and who can decrypt the information, and how they manage their security, those are the hard problems.
I was actually trying to figure out how to post "hot and cold running MOTAS" but as a punchline it just lacked something. So I went old-school, sorry if it offended you.
I think the ideal arrangement is a C3000 max config blade cluster tower driving 8 40" LCD displays. Preferably seating would be a motorized recliner with six degrees of freedom. There should be sufficient audio facilities to provide a pleasant working environment for the programmer. This setup should be arranged on a well lit patio next to a heated indoor pool. There should be plenty of staff to bring refreshments, fresh towels, and printouts. For ad-hoc diagrams some "sidewalk chalk" can be handy.
As long as you're going so minimalist, you forgot the hot and cold running wenches.
While I can't quite tell if you're trolling or simply greedy, there's a certain logic behind your argument.
Right now, electricity cannot be economically stored, so generation capacity has to equal peak demand, or else someone gets browned out. Utilities go to elaborate lengths to estimate future demand, based on housing construction, industrial zoning, winter temperatures, summer temperatures, etc. They build right to the edge of what their predicted demand will be, and rely on peak plants to supplant their generation capacity during those times when they've guessed wrong. But those peak plants charge 30X or more than the average generating rate, so there's strong incentive to not use them.
What they're doing by all this penny pinching and building right to the edge of demand is they are thinning the tolerances. In the past, many things worked well or lasted long simply because they were massively overbuilt. For example, rather than fully study and understand the material strength of an aluminum engine block with steel cylinder sleeves, they cast the engine block out of iron. Rather than measure and predict the load to within 1% of future demand, they built a plant with double or triple the planned capacity. Those systems lasted a long time as a result, and people got very used to the high availability of their services.
And in case you were serious, the correct economic answer is yes, they should offer you the extra capacity, as long as you're personally willing to pay the price. My electric company offers demand pricing. Normal pricing is $0.11/kWH for household use, regardless of what you're using the power for. But if you willing to let them control your air conditioner, you pay only $0.055/kWH for all the electricity your A/C consumes throughout the year, plus they discount your bill by $10/month for June, July and August. Control consists of a rolling 15-minutes-on/15-minutes-off duty cycle during peak demand. My heat pump was controlled for a total of 90 hours last summer, and the difference was hardly noticeable. When my heat pump was cut in the winter, the gas furnace kicked in as needed. I save several hundred dollars per year on this program.
Most of our fascination with the past is not "how they lived" but rather "how they survived given the hardships of their existence". Nobody in the future is going to care how we lived or died, other than to note that we turned more raw resources into garbage in a single century than all of humanity consumed in all prior centuries combined.
There are exceptional people, of course, that are fascinating to study for reasons other than "how they survived." I will not be one of them, not even with significant cultural whitewashing.
Who the hell is going to want to go through my old electronic junk? There is so little of value spaced out amongst so much cruft that it wouldn't be worth anyone's time to sort it all out.
He didn't just make a mistake. He left a prototype in a bar while out drinking. That's flat out incompetence and he should be fired for it. I have zero sympathy for the guy, this growing trend of business people and government officials leaving sensitive equipment and data behind is just pure incompetence and being lax.
It's a prototype of a new phone. It's not a list of undercover CIA operatives.
Get some perspective.
And Apple's a computer maker, not the CIA. From Apple's perspective, marketing and new product hype is a large (albeit intangible) corporate asset. They take this kind of thing very seriously.
Further, this may well be covered by trade secret laws in California as well, which makes knowing dissemination of trade secrets a crime.
They could not impose that on a person who is not responsible for maintaining the trade secret. If I worked for Apple, sure, I can see that I would have to keep Apple's secrets. But if I find an iPhone 4G on the floor of a bar, it's obviously not a very important secret -- someone left it on the floor of a bar, for Pete's sake! Even if I knew what it was, any expectation of secrecy is long gone.
But then again this guy did demonstrate he knew the value of the secret in that he offered access to it to some tabloid sites in exchange for money. If there was any wiggle room before in whether or not he knew if it was a secret, asking for money pretty much sealed the deal.
going to lose some job opportunities as a result of getting outed. Real dick move by Gizmodo.
Why would he lose his job? Mistakes happen. Costly mistakes happen. This man is the one single person in the whole Apple company who will never, ever in his life lose another iPhone. Why fire him when the company just paid a lot for his education?
Because if they whip him and crucify him and publicly humiliate him, everyone at Apple will never, ever lose another tech prototype, ever. Without the outwardly visible pain, nobody else will worry too much about taking care of their stuff.
For the record, I see a lot more wrong with copyright law than with copying. And anyone with any technical insight should have realized a long time ago that our current copyright laws are unenforceable. I see the **AA types investing all kinds of money into lobbyists, technology and laws to change this, but short of a police state, that's not working so well in China, despite the government pouring all kinds of resources into controlling what the people do (though they don't care much about piracy, only about anti-government sentiments, the fact that they're trying to keep certain information scarce is the same).
I think the copyright laws are enforceable, but as a result we come up with some really stupid judgments (the whole Jammie Thomas thing and the $$$$/song price tag they stuck on it.) DRM is just trying to prevent the act, not as a means of "enforcing copyright." Of course it doesn't help that both sides blur the line between the ability to copy and the right to copy, however it best suits their argument.
And the Chinese situation proves only that a police state is effective at maintaining a totalitarian regime, not in preventing crime.
I think it's not a question of ethics, and here's why: you can't share a secret with a million people and expect them to keep it.
The ease of doing a thing doesn't change the ethics of doing a thing. It's easy to drink and drive, too, but in doing so you place other people at risk. Ease doesn't make it ethical.
The industry uses DRM to reduce the ease of copying. Breaking the DRM does not grant you the right to copy, only the ability. Whether the music is protected or not, copying it is still unethical.
In the case of file sharing, you reduce revenue to the artist. Arguments about "I never would have bought it anyway" simply further attests to the ease of file sharing. If you have a copy and listen to it, it obviously has some value to you; but as the producers, they get to set the price. Supply and demand. If you disagree with their asking price, walk away. If you have a copy and don't listen to it, perhaps the next person to download it from you will find value in it. In any case it doesn't change the ethics of your having a copy.
Complaints about industry greed are not valid arguments. Music is not a basic human need. They are under no obligation to provide you with music, and you will not suffer without it. They may dangle it enticingly in front of you. They may market it with videos of attractive people. But if you want it that badly, go play by their rules, as they created it. If they say "pay us $1,000 for a single song", whether or not they are behaving ethically doesn't change how the ethics apply to you. You always have the ethical choice of walking away without it.
Complaints that "the industry profits but not the artist" are simply not your problem. If the artist chooses to sign a contract that gives them $250,000 plus 0.1% of all album revenue, and commits them to producing five albums, well, then the artist is stupid and gullible. The label is certainly acting unethically towards the artist. If you don't like it, your ethical choices include not purchasing from the label, picketing the label outside the record store, or creating a Hollywood campaign for artist's rights. Copying their music in no way helps the artist, (and simply further inflates industry arguments about "piracy.") It is in no way an ethical response to the mistreatment of artists.
Note that it's also not legally permitted to "screw them because they tried to screw you." Our society does not permit acts of revenge or vigilantism. If you have been wronged, the application of justice is reserved exclusively to the courts. (I find it ironic that the movie industry makes billions of dollars off movies that show "villains getting what they deserve" yet complain bitterly when it happens to them.)
Complaints about copyright law itself are similarly flawed. Copyright has existed in this country for two hundred years, and was not created at the behest of corporations but of artists and authors. The most recent changes have been around the extension of the law well beyond the death of the artist (granted by the Congress on behalf of the Disney corporation.) And the DMCA is primarily punishment around the circumvention of the existing copyright law and stiffer penalties for violations of the law, but didn't really change the foundations of copyright. The law has been there longer than the technology for recording music.
But if you're saying that "numbers somehow make it ethical", now you're finally on to something. If you say that "90% of people think file sharing is OK, let's change the laws", great. Change the laws. Then it all becomes ethical. Until the law goes away, however, it is not ethical.
I assume you took exception to the word "else." Smoking weed delivers more tar and carcinogens into the body than smoking tobacco. This can cause health problems just as surely as smoking cigarettes, but since it's not smoked in the same quantities as tobacco, (and is not physically addictive,) the danger and damage is usually a lot lower. But you're fooling yourself if you think pot is 100% harmless.
Students don't have much money (much less than people with jobs), but still have the same needs, created by the industry and our dynamic culture. The only way for these people to fullfill these needs is to piracy. I don't condone piracy.. but I have to say that the other option is frustration.
I don't theres any solution. But theres also no damage either: these people will not buy anyway. Once these people finish his studios and get a job, these same people will start buying things again, wen buying is easier.
Let students warez his music, there are things more important for us.
You used the wrong word above when you said "needs". Music and movies are not needs. They are "wants". They are wants that are skillfully created by advertisers, marketers, producers, and talented artists and engineers, and they are presented as needs and sold as needs, but they are not. Any confusion you have between needs and wants is a lesson you really should learn now in order to survive in the modern world without going head-first into debt. People who don't learn this lesson soon think they need a sports car, and they need a big TV, and they need a mansion. Then they find they need shovels full of money to pay their debts. Then they go bankrupt, and discover that nobody will even put gas in their car without cash up front.
So there's a perfectly workable solution that's existed since the dawn of trade: if you can't afford to pay for a thing, go without it. You do not need music to survive. You will not perish or get kicked out of school for not having a copy of Avatar. You will not starve, you will not freeze to death, you will not go homeless because you don't have a copy of the latest movie on your iPhone. If you still think music is a need, go petition your government representative to have them hand out "welfare music" to homeless people so they don't die of inadequate culture. See how far that proposal goes.
Slashdot Mirror
According to people who study such things, the XBox was originally released at near cost (or even below) in order to drive marketshare.
The Courier could have been released the same way, at a price point lower than the iPad. Yes, we could all make jokes about the Courier Store, and Bing, and Zune, and all the rest of the stuff they'd do to cripple a great idea. But what if it was as open as any other PC platform? Sure, the app store might be lame, and high priced, and of the three dozen apps half are buggy nagware, and one gives you a virus. But if you could put your own OS on it, tell me you wouldn't buy it in a heartbeat over the iPad.
Because it doesn't have to play the movie across the split. Imagine opening the Courier up to an angle similar to a netbook, resting one half on the tabletop, with the other at a comfortable viewing angle.
You watch the movie in 16:9 on the top screen only while the other screen is dark, conserving batteries and simply awaiting your touch in order to present a full playback menu.
I suspect there would have been a "netbook mode" that would have had the lower screen acting as a touch-keyboard for more traditional computer-like use. This would simply have been another application in that mode.
Just for reference sake, her name is Tamara Hope. She's actually quite pretty.
I have no doubt that she's pretty, but not when rolled in bleached flour, told to stare unblinkingly into the lens, and filmed through a double soft filter. It works when you're trying to create a "mostly human" look, or if you're trying to fry trout. Otherwise it's just creepy.
It's easier to have a fair trial when it's not as public as this. Juries and prosecutors have less reason to be biased.
By "marketing blunders", do they mean Palm's "The Most Pale Woman in the World" campaign? Because I've gotta say, she really didn't sell me on a Palm, or anything else.
She looked more like an extra from the Lord of the Rings (generic elf maiden #38) than a spokesmodel for a technical product.
You just gave me really good idea for an app... a magic 8 ball that uses the accelerometer on the iphone, and all of the answers relating directly to whether or not your app will get approved for the app store. Unfortunately, I doubt that this app would get approved for the app store, either. oh well.
"Outlook not so good."
That magic 8 ball is right again!
It's made from fast growing wood that is grown on farms for the express purpose of making paper, so it's not like they're not chopping down old growth forests. And offices around the country routinely recycle their paper, which make a whiter pulp that requires even less bleach than raw wood.
It's just not that big of a deal to me if it gets the point across better.
I certainly don't print just to print, but I don't feel like I have to stop and pity the poor trees that gave their lives for my TPS cover sheets.
There are free encryption tools out there.
The last time I checked, SSL certificates that chain back to a CA in all the major browsers weren't free.
There are several answers to that. First, certificates that are chained back to a CA aren't required for internal encryption. You are perfectly free to create your own root certificate, and install that root on all the machines you own. From then on, any certificates you create you sign with your own CA, and you can then verify them in any of your machines.
Second, SSL is only one protocol out of many. You don't even need certificates if you're using other protocols. For example, if you're using IPSec, you can use a pre-shared key (PSK). No certificates required. WPA2 doesn't require a certificate.
Remember, certificates != keys. Certificates are just a way to pass public keys around in a fashion that lets you place a bit of trust in them.
a) Windows encryption is known to be flawed, and using a known-bad encrpytion system for this sort of thing probably counts as negligence.
Citation needed.
b) Windows encrpytion has back doors, and... see above.
Non bat-shit crazy conspiracy theory citation needed.
c) Anyone implementing encrpytion at the flick of a switch without properly planning for it will very likely regret it when it comes to file recovery, backup use, etc.
No arguments here.
Yes, application level encryption of those sensitive fields is generally more secure than trying to encrypt data over every wire and at every disk. But how you manage the keys, and who can decrypt the information, and how they manage their security, those are the hard problems.
I was actually trying to figure out how to post "hot and cold running MOTAS" but as a punchline it just lacked something. So I went old-school, sorry if it offended you.
I think the ideal arrangement is a C3000 max config blade cluster tower driving 8 40" LCD displays. Preferably seating would be a motorized recliner with six degrees of freedom. There should be sufficient audio facilities to provide a pleasant working environment for the programmer. This setup should be arranged on a well lit patio next to a heated indoor pool. There should be plenty of staff to bring refreshments, fresh towels, and printouts. For ad-hoc diagrams some "sidewalk chalk" can be handy.
As long as you're going so minimalist, you forgot the hot and cold running wenches.
It was a second story window, so I wasn't so scared of getting my back stabbed :-)
I'm far more worried about my boss doing the back-stabbing than a stranger through a window.
While I can't quite tell if you're trolling or simply greedy, there's a certain logic behind your argument.
Right now, electricity cannot be economically stored, so generation capacity has to equal peak demand, or else someone gets browned out. Utilities go to elaborate lengths to estimate future demand, based on housing construction, industrial zoning, winter temperatures, summer temperatures, etc. They build right to the edge of what their predicted demand will be, and rely on peak plants to supplant their generation capacity during those times when they've guessed wrong. But those peak plants charge 30X or more than the average generating rate, so there's strong incentive to not use them.
What they're doing by all this penny pinching and building right to the edge of demand is they are thinning the tolerances. In the past, many things worked well or lasted long simply because they were massively overbuilt. For example, rather than fully study and understand the material strength of an aluminum engine block with steel cylinder sleeves, they cast the engine block out of iron. Rather than measure and predict the load to within 1% of future demand, they built a plant with double or triple the planned capacity. Those systems lasted a long time as a result, and people got very used to the high availability of their services.
And in case you were serious, the correct economic answer is yes, they should offer you the extra capacity, as long as you're personally willing to pay the price. My electric company offers demand pricing. Normal pricing is $0.11/kWH for household use, regardless of what you're using the power for. But if you willing to let them control your air conditioner, you pay only $0.055/kWH for all the electricity your A/C consumes throughout the year, plus they discount your bill by $10/month for June, July and August. Control consists of a rolling 15-minutes-on/15-minutes-off duty cycle during peak demand. My heat pump was controlled for a total of 90 hours last summer, and the difference was hardly noticeable. When my heat pump was cut in the winter, the gas furnace kicked in as needed. I save several hundred dollars per year on this program.
Most of our fascination with the past is not "how they lived" but rather "how they survived given the hardships of their existence". Nobody in the future is going to care how we lived or died, other than to note that we turned more raw resources into garbage in a single century than all of humanity consumed in all prior centuries combined.
There are exceptional people, of course, that are fascinating to study for reasons other than "how they survived." I will not be one of them, not even with significant cultural whitewashing.
Who the hell is going to want to go through my old electronic junk? There is so little of value spaced out amongst so much cruft that it wouldn't be worth anyone's time to sort it all out.
And exactly whose life is in danger from the losing of a prototype phone?
The loser who lost it.
He didn't just make a mistake. He left a prototype in a bar while out drinking. That's flat out incompetence and he should be fired for it. I have zero sympathy for the guy, this growing trend of business people and government officials leaving sensitive equipment and data behind is just pure incompetence and being lax.
It's a prototype of a new phone. It's not a list of undercover CIA operatives.
Get some perspective.
And Apple's a computer maker, not the CIA. From Apple's perspective, marketing and new product hype is a large (albeit intangible) corporate asset. They take this kind of thing very seriously.
Further, this may well be covered by trade secret laws in California as well, which makes knowing dissemination of trade secrets a crime.
They could not impose that on a person who is not responsible for maintaining the trade secret. If I worked for Apple, sure, I can see that I would have to keep Apple's secrets. But if I find an iPhone 4G on the floor of a bar, it's obviously not a very important secret -- someone left it on the floor of a bar, for Pete's sake! Even if I knew what it was, any expectation of secrecy is long gone.
But then again this guy did demonstrate he knew the value of the secret in that he offered access to it to some tabloid sites in exchange for money. If there was any wiggle room before in whether or not he knew if it was a secret, asking for money pretty much sealed the deal.
going to lose some job opportunities as a result of getting outed. Real dick move by Gizmodo.
Why would he lose his job? Mistakes happen. Costly mistakes happen. This man is the one single person in the whole Apple company who will never, ever in his life lose another iPhone. Why fire him when the company just paid a lot for his education?
Because if they whip him and crucify him and publicly humiliate him, everyone at Apple will never, ever lose another tech prototype, ever. Without the outwardly visible pain, nobody else will worry too much about taking care of their stuff.
Seriously? You think stealing clothes, cell phones, food and drink, whatever you want is all OK as long you don't get caught?
Wow. We really don't need you.
For the record, I see a lot more wrong with copyright law than with copying. And anyone with any technical insight should have realized a long time ago that our current copyright laws are unenforceable. I see the **AA types investing all kinds of money into lobbyists, technology and laws to change this, but short of a police state, that's not working so well in China, despite the government pouring all kinds of resources into controlling what the people do (though they don't care much about piracy, only about anti-government sentiments, the fact that they're trying to keep certain information scarce is the same).
I think the copyright laws are enforceable, but as a result we come up with some really stupid judgments (the whole Jammie Thomas thing and the $$$$/song price tag they stuck on it.) DRM is just trying to prevent the act, not as a means of "enforcing copyright." Of course it doesn't help that both sides blur the line between the ability to copy and the right to copy, however it best suits their argument.
And the Chinese situation proves only that a police state is effective at maintaining a totalitarian regime, not in preventing crime.
I think it's not a question of ethics, and here's why: you can't share a secret with a million people and expect them to keep it.
The ease of doing a thing doesn't change the ethics of doing a thing. It's easy to drink and drive, too, but in doing so you place other people at risk. Ease doesn't make it ethical.
The industry uses DRM to reduce the ease of copying. Breaking the DRM does not grant you the right to copy, only the ability. Whether the music is protected or not, copying it is still unethical.
In the case of file sharing, you reduce revenue to the artist. Arguments about "I never would have bought it anyway" simply further attests to the ease of file sharing. If you have a copy and listen to it, it obviously has some value to you; but as the producers, they get to set the price. Supply and demand. If you disagree with their asking price, walk away. If you have a copy and don't listen to it, perhaps the next person to download it from you will find value in it. In any case it doesn't change the ethics of your having a copy.
Complaints about industry greed are not valid arguments. Music is not a basic human need. They are under no obligation to provide you with music, and you will not suffer without it. They may dangle it enticingly in front of you. They may market it with videos of attractive people. But if you want it that badly, go play by their rules, as they created it. If they say "pay us $1,000 for a single song", whether or not they are behaving ethically doesn't change how the ethics apply to you. You always have the ethical choice of walking away without it.
Complaints that "the industry profits but not the artist" are simply not your problem. If the artist chooses to sign a contract that gives them $250,000 plus 0.1% of all album revenue, and commits them to producing five albums, well, then the artist is stupid and gullible. The label is certainly acting unethically towards the artist. If you don't like it, your ethical choices include not purchasing from the label, picketing the label outside the record store, or creating a Hollywood campaign for artist's rights. Copying their music in no way helps the artist, (and simply further inflates industry arguments about "piracy.") It is in no way an ethical response to the mistreatment of artists.
Note that it's also not legally permitted to "screw them because they tried to screw you." Our society does not permit acts of revenge or vigilantism. If you have been wronged, the application of justice is reserved exclusively to the courts. (I find it ironic that the movie industry makes billions of dollars off movies that show "villains getting what they deserve" yet complain bitterly when it happens to them.)
Complaints about copyright law itself are similarly flawed. Copyright has existed in this country for two hundred years, and was not created at the behest of corporations but of artists and authors. The most recent changes have been around the extension of the law well beyond the death of the artist (granted by the Congress on behalf of the Disney corporation.) And the DMCA is primarily punishment around the circumvention of the existing copyright law and stiffer penalties for violations of the law, but didn't really change the foundations of copyright. The law has been there longer than the technology for recording music.
But if you're saying that "numbers somehow make it ethical", now you're finally on to something. If you say that "90% of people think file sharing is OK, let's change the laws", great. Change the laws. Then it all becomes ethical. Until the law goes away, however, it is not ethical.
I assume you took exception to the word "else." Smoking weed delivers more tar and carcinogens into the body than smoking tobacco. This can cause health problems just as surely as smoking cigarettes, but since it's not smoked in the same quantities as tobacco, (and is not physically addictive,) the danger and damage is usually a lot lower. But you're fooling yourself if you think pot is 100% harmless.
Students don't have much money (much less than people with jobs), but still have the same needs, created by the industry and our dynamic culture. The only way for these people to fullfill these needs is to piracy. I don't condone piracy.. but I have to say that the other option is frustration.
I don't theres any solution. But theres also no damage either: these people will not buy anyway. Once these people finish his studios and get a job, these same people will start buying things again, wen buying is easier.
Let students warez his music, there are things more important for us.
You used the wrong word above when you said "needs". Music and movies are not needs. They are "wants". They are wants that are skillfully created by advertisers, marketers, producers, and talented artists and engineers, and they are presented as needs and sold as needs, but they are not. Any confusion you have between needs and wants is a lesson you really should learn now in order to survive in the modern world without going head-first into debt. People who don't learn this lesson soon think they need a sports car, and they need a big TV, and they need a mansion. Then they find they need shovels full of money to pay their debts. Then they go bankrupt, and discover that nobody will even put gas in their car without cash up front.
So there's a perfectly workable solution that's existed since the dawn of trade: if you can't afford to pay for a thing, go without it. You do not need music to survive. You will not perish or get kicked out of school for not having a copy of Avatar. You will not starve, you will not freeze to death, you will not go homeless because you don't have a copy of the latest movie on your iPhone. If you still think music is a need, go petition your government representative to have them hand out "welfare music" to homeless people so they don't die of inadequate culture. See how far that proposal goes.