I want to know where this idea has come from that making music should make you a millionaire.
I want to know where this idea has come from that making anything should make you a millionaire.
While too small income differences are bad for motivation, too large income differences are bad for general health and morale (Not "moral"). It is a difficult balance to walk, but I think the US and many other countries lost it in the late 20th century. The top margin income tax percentages plummeted, and it didn't take long before the vultures came in to feed, transferring capital from productive companies to themselves.
Something that would be far easier if the product was cheaper.
But the goal isn't to make a cheap products. The goal is to maximize profit. And that is done by using your artificial monopoly (allowing for high margin profits) combined with huge amounts of advertising (supported by the high margin profits) to increase sales.
The only reason a million times as many people prefer Spears and the like is because of advertising and promotion.
And incidentally, the reason advertising and promotion is so effective, is because IP has a high margin profit, so it is profitable to spend a huge part of the product cost/price on advertising and promotion.
whatever it is, and deserves a return on that invesment?
They do deserve to get paid for their efforts. But any way of paying which involves the restricting the spread of the information they have created is flawed to the bones.
but reject any costs at all
No, I am not rejecting cost. I am rejecting the current system.
would you be willing to have a portion of each paycheck docked to cover compensation for the creation of things currently covered by copyright, or education for aspiring artists (no, public school doesn't count, certainly not in the US - even public universities are very expensive)?
I would. In fact, in my country a small part of my paycheck is already compensating various artists. As for universities, they are already funded by the government.
Also, even though my other posts may sound aggressive, I am not against giving money to information producers. I do pay for information sometimes. What I am against is restricting people from using information on the basis that it is a good way of compensating the producers. It isn't. It is a horrible way of running the system.
Believe it or not, you have this backwards. By setting the value of any particular copy of the work at zero, you are destroying all value of the work itself in terms of the economy,
I know what you mean. This air I am breathing is totally valueless in the economy. Sucks doesn't it. Maybe you could lobby for some laws that would change that.
Conversely, by setting a specific value on each copy, there becomes an economic motivation to create such works, which in turn creates value for society.
No, it unfortunately doesn't. While copyright may create more works, it simultaneously reduces the spread of same works. It is the nature of the beast.
Rejection of the "I take what I want" attitude that pervades our society is in no way immoral
I don't have a "take what I want" attitude. What I do have is a disdain for waste in society. And preventing someone from consuming a copy of something is waste.
Copying doesn't cost resources, and therefore putting a price on it is immoral. If you want compensate people for creating information, invent a system that doesn't restrict distribution of information. Otherwise I will not have anything to do with it, and will go on calling it wasteful corruption.
Claiming "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so shut up!" may be true in theory, but it's not relevant. It's not about control, it's not about lording money over the poor folks who would oh-so-love to use your product if only they could afford it. It's about realizing that there is a value to peoples' time and that they deserve to be compensated for that time if they so wish.
Yes, the deserve to be compensated. But restricting access to information is not the way to do it. And it will never be the way to do it. The problem is that those in favor of copyright will keep confusing the issue and claim that compensation equals copyright.
That is what I am fighting against. And it isn't just copyright. It applies equally well to patents. I am sick of seeing countless westerns supporting death sentences on huge amounts of third world inhabitants yearly in the name of copyright and capitalism.
It sounds awfully like you're the one who wants to strive backward into the middle ages. I'm sorry that people making money from non-tangible goods doesn't meet with your approval, but that's the way we've gone as a global society.
Don't presume to speak for a global society. Who you are speaking for is a small group of western elites.
That you would literally attack somebody who suggests maybe, just maybe, you should actually have to compensate people who create something rather than just taking it as you please makes you little more than a neanderthal, desperately trying to provide some sort of moral justification for something you planned on doing anyway.
I attacked someone who told someone else to stop listen to things that were expensive even though that someone else wasn't wasting any resources of society. There wasn't a "maybe you should compensate the people" involved.
Well, actually compensation was mentioned further down. When he suggested that you buy an inferior program to compensate a completely different developer. So that is what the world has come to. Tell people to use crappy information, when we could just as easily have them using the better information at no extra cost.
You're right; stealing is
Haha. Now I know that you are a simple bullshitting lier. Just have to look a couple of paragraphs above to find the inconsistency in your argument...
I've fought long and hard against people who call downloading music, movies or software "theft" or "stealing,"
.....Thanks for proving that you are the neanderthal troll.
Because it does not take the same amount of time to develop, and that is what you're paying for, correct? Why do we get so incensed when people violate the GPL/BSD/Apache/whatever licenses but we have no problem when people violate commercial licenses, despite the fact they all use the same copyright laws?
But the programs have already been developed. Restricting copying after the fact is just pure waste. Forcing people to use inferior programs when there is no extra cost to society is uneconomical and little more than a bi product of a corrupt capitalistic system.
And no, I don't get incensed when people violate open source licenses.
How would you authenticate multiplayer if your game is something other than FPS or RTS, where all four players are holding USB gamepads and looking at one HDTV monitor?
Of course you can't authenticate split screen multi player gaming. I just thought that the readers of my post would be bright enough to grasp that the multi player aspect I was referring to was when you have servers controlled by the publisher, coordinating the multi player.
So you argument is basically that development time costs nothing?
No it isn't. It is your argument that my argument is that.
Just because the process of copying the media is the same whether you're copying a game that's taken 2 years of paid development time to create and a load of CVs you've written yourself doesn't mean the value is the same.
And what does developer time has to do with copying a finished copy. Nothing, since a finished work can't be undone.
Now, if you want to claim that free market economy doesn't work well with an information economy, go ahead. I won't stop you, since you would be right. But claiming that forbidding copying is a good way to turn information into a well functioning free market economy is just plain bullshit.
The problem with your attitude is that without someone ultimately paying for the development time
Well, yes, if they want something new produced. But we are talking about stuff that already has been produced here. Don't confuse the issue.
what you steal wouldn't exist in the first place
Well, if it didn't exist I would copy it. So don't go talking about hypotheticals here. Oh, and your use of the word steal decreases my interest in any of your arguments by 90%, due to simple loss in credibility.
but if it weren't so easy to copy stuff what would you do? Go without?
I would consume far less. In fact, I did consume far less before the Internet became popular.
Piracy is so fashionable because it's so easy, intangible and apparently victimless
Piracy is fashionable because it is the right thing to do. It is easy and cheap and defines the progress that humanity has made in information technology. If it was easy and cheap to replicate physical material, I would be doing that also.
if your only option to get something was to pay for it or do without you'd either find a way to scrape together the cash if you needed it bad enough, or you wouldn't.
Of course. And that cash would represent the resources needed to produce what I wanted. Which is just another argument for piracy. The resources needed to produce a copy of an existing piece of information is near zero. I don't want new information, because that is costly.
If something's expensive, why do you feel the right to watch it/listen to it/use it, when others have to pay? Isn't it more ethical to just not pay?
What gives you the moral right to restrict him from listening to/using it. It isn't like there is some law of scarcity involved that makes it necessary to restrict access? No, in fact, the only reason to restrict access to him is so that you can feel superior. You own the lebensraum. Not him. And you just have to make that point.
As for convenience, that's no excuse at all, it's just laziness.
Laziness is the greatest virtue of all. It is mother of all inventions. Those who claim that it is a sin, are those who want to strive backwards into the middle ages.
As for pirating professional software for 'fun' or 'non-commercial' use, if you don't need all the features, then why not get a more limited program that does what you want and actually compensate a developer?
Why get a more limited program when the more advanced programs costs the exact same amount to copy. It is just wasting the resources of society to go with an inferior product. Of course, wasting resources is exactly what you are promoting. Efficiency is not in your vocabulary.
You don't have a right to use something for free just because you think it's too expensive.
You have the right to claim that, but it doesn't make it true.
To start out with, I would like to mention that I have pirated a lot in my lifetime. I pirated more when I was unemployed and poor, because I had lots of time and less money. I still pirate some, but nowadays I also buy more now that I am earning good money. But anyway, here is my viewpoint of piracy.
Most of the excuses pirates use are just that, excuses.
* Try before you buy! It does happen, but rarely. * Everything sucks! Then why are you pirating it in the first place? * Damn the evil publishers!! You really believe most pirates are like that?
Want to hear a valid excuse
* It is free to pirate, so I don't have to worry about money.
Now, you will here people mention that these games aren't really that expensive. But that misses the point. There is a huge difference between cheap and free, and it affects behavior a lot. When something is free, you can consume it without feeling like you have to get value out of it. And that gains a certain amount of freedom which is very difficult to compete with if you are trying to charge for a product.
Now, the article in question I actually found was fairly unbiased. It did mention that piracy is high as soon as the game is released. This is not strange at all. As pirates have no restrictions on them in regard to money, they will play whatever they feel like. And the newest thing on the market is simply an easy target.
This may point out that Pirates generally have a lower attention span they quickly move on to the next game
This is a nice observation in the article. I would say that it isn't attention span per se. It is just that pirates have a fare wider selection of items to select from. Again, having to do with the freedom I mentioned above.
The author goes on to discuss ways to combat piracy. And here I want to mention an important thing. If you use piracy protection to fight against piracy, then you are using it wrong. If you use piracy protection to steal customers from a competing product that doesn't have piracy protection then you are doing it right.
If you fail to understand the difference, it is simple. Pirates buy products too. And they are more likely to buy something if they get value out of it beyond legal ownership. This is why authenticated multi player mode is a very efficient piracy protection mechanism. It gives the pirates something that they want to buy, without providing any negative effects on other customers (who may or may not pirate other products).
It is the same in other businesses. If a pirate has to decided between buying a CD of one artist, or attending a live performance of another artist, guess what they will choose. Same with DVD vs. movie theater.
Of course, there are always pirates that won't buy anything. Either because they have no money, or because they intend to use that money for other things. But, those are the kind of pirates that simply aren't worth spending any effort on. At best you can hope that their money habits will change over time, and that you as a developer will be a beneficiary.
So, by your analysis any array of binary content has no value?
He is correct. Binary content does not have any market value. It does have real value (which is the value in the eye of the buyer). And it does have artificial value which comes from government enforced violence to prevent copying. But, no, it doesn't have any (or at least extremely low) market value due to the way it can be replicated. It is basic supply and demand theory. Economy 101.
Copyright and patent law reduces the actually usage of information due to artificial costs, in fact making society poorer as well as reducing the general efficiency of any industry involved. The only winners are the top dogs of the content industry (that pick up all the winnings at the expense of the bottom 90% plus the rest of the economy) and the government officials who get to claim that the GDP is higher and collect taxes on it, even though it is wasted money for the whole economy.
Functional: a standard six-foot antenna is bolted to the roof of every car. It may be over-sized and look ridiculous, but it gets the job done.
That just sounds wrong. Functional would be something like this.
Functional: It uses several small serially connected identical antennas that can receive audio with mathematically guaranteed perfect quality. Although with one quick. However many times you switch to a certain frequency, it always plays the exact same music.
At least there's a benefit for shareholders in the scary corporation scenario.
With companies, shareholders only benefit as long as they elect board members that have the corporations wellbeing in first mind. As soon as the board members start to only have their own interest or agenda in mind, you start to get bad results. (although it may take some time for the bad results to shine through as the board members of course will hide them to make them self look better)
Agreed. And even when actual education is needed, there needs to be questions about how much education. I think any potential programmer could do well with a year to maybe 1 1/2 years of education.
Basic algorithms (including simple complexity theory). The different ways of programming (functional, OO, declarative). Some basic discrete math and logic. And some other things. But really, you don't need a master's degree. If anything, getting some real life programming experience is more important.
I didn't say that distribution is a waste. I said that there is a lot of waste going on in distribution. There is slight but important difference between the two.
I watched one of Adam Curtis documentaries, and I liked what one of the people that got interviewed said. The below is from memory so is probably not 100% word for word.
- Corrupt is your word. It isn't the word I would use. - What word would you use? - They were seduced.
It just hit spot on. People are seduced by ideas and once it becomes ingrained into their minds, it is very hard to see the problems with the idea. It must be a good idea because it sounds so good, and if you just look around you can see all the evidence supporting the idea. And if there is some contradicting evidence, then it is obviously because of a completely different reason and not because of the idea itself.
And it keeps repeating on and on in the IP industry. Wasn't there a Slashdot article not long ago that EA was spending three times as much on marketing as they did on developer costs. The stories about artists getting screwed is numerous. And Hollywood has even given name to an accounting type used for screwing other people out of money. And it isn't just the copyright industries. Pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than they on research. And the list goes on.
And there are actually people that believe that intellectual property laws are good for society? The truth is that there is an incredible waste going on in distribution, middle man skimming, advertising, manufacturing, warehousing and so on. What starts out as $2 of information becomes $40 in the store. And this is the standard, not the exception. Even when sold via the Internet via digital distribution, it still becomes over $20.
The sad truth is that todays society could easily support a 10 hour work week if we got rid of all the inefficiencies and wasted job efforts. But it will not happen in the current society, because neither side (socialists nor capitalists) are interested in getting rid of such inefficiencies. In fact, if there is one thing that everyone can agree on, it would be that people should work and work some more "to make a better society".
And what about all those who don't want to fight, not because they are weak, but because they don't like fighting. Of course, you don't have an answer to that. Because your attitude stinks of the fighter mentality. Your choice of words like "proving yourself" is very revealing.
It is people like you who encourage young people to fight that is the problem. Perpetuating and encouraging violence in society is not a good solution.
And yes, I have stood up for myself, but I will never be proud of it, and I will not respect those who I stood up to. Violence is not something to be respected for. At best it is a last resort when other things didn't work. But when kids are forced to resort to violence because of the inaction of adults, then it is a failure of the adults.
and they were finally successful in having the state government pass a law barring local governments from selling access, instead they have to sell to other service providers.
It is no wonder the USians consider the government inefficient. It is so corrupt that it convicts its uncorrupted parts for the crime of performing a public service.
The only difference between a negative and positive right is that a negative right's imposition is miniscule and the action going against its imposition is usually a ridiculous thing for a person to do
From my understanding, libertarians have somehow managed to classify property rights as a negative right. And that is definitely not something that has a minuscule imposition.
Of course, the real question here is if property rights actually are a negative right at all. From my perspective, it looks and behaves a lot like most positive rights.
The concept of freedom revolves around negative rights
Bullshit propaganda from libertarian play book. Your construct of negative versus positive rights is self-serving bullshit. When you stop forcing me to pay for policemen to protect your property and courts to enforce your contracts I'll start taking you seriously. (Or maybe not. But I'll at least show some respect for the consistency)
You don't have to *force* anyone to *recognize* your rights
So you aren't threatening to lock me up if I put a bullet through your head? You aren't threatening to put me in prison when I try to violate your property laws? Just who do you think you are kidding. It always comes back to force. It is the fundamental rule of nature. Those who are strong decided over those who are weak. Society is simply an extension of that where multiple individuals group together under common ideas and compromise. And if an idea is common enough, it may be made into a societal right.
Finally, if the society is strong enough it may conduct talks with other societies and come up with a list of "human rights" that they all recognize. But that of course has little real meaning, unless societies are willing to stand up to societies that violates those "rights".
Rights ensure your freedom, but not at the cost of imposing on others.
Are you a lawyer or salesman by any chance, because this is some serious word twisting. If you aren't imposing on anyone, you simply don't need to have your "rights" ensured, because well, [b]you aren't fricking imposing on anyone[/b]
Fortunately for you, you are living in a society that has decided that you have a right to live, and is willing to put its force behind that. As such, even though your existence is imposing on me, I am less likely to stick a knife into your stomach and watch your face as you squirm and die, as I would get punished for it. No offense intended. Just making a point that a mere existence can impose on someone else. In fact, there was a famous man not too long ago who thought that Jews were imposing on him and got into a position of power where he could do something about it.
You are entitled to say whatever the fuck you want in your home to anyone willing to listen
Only because society permits you. In a totalitarian system you often aren't. The plain truth is that the only "rights" you have are those that you are able to defend by force. When a society says that a human right exists, what they mean is that they recognize a law as covering all humans, and will use force against violators.
Of course, a society has to actually are willing to use force and not idly stand by, as otherwise the "right" is little more than bureaucratic bullshit speak.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to know where this idea has come from that making music should make you a millionaire.
I want to know where this idea has come from that making anything should make you a millionaire.
While too small income differences are bad for motivation, too large income differences are bad for general health and morale (Not "moral"). It is a difficult balance to walk, but I think the US and many other countries lost it in the late 20th century. The top margin income tax percentages plummeted, and it didn't take long before the vultures came in to feed, transferring capital from productive companies to themselves.
Something that would be far easier if the product was cheaper.
But the goal isn't to make a cheap products. The goal is to maximize profit. And that is done by using your artificial monopoly (allowing for high margin profits) combined with huge amounts of advertising (supported by the high margin profits) to increase sales.
The only reason a million times as many people prefer Spears and the like is because of advertising and promotion.
And incidentally, the reason advertising and promotion is so effective, is because IP has a high margin profit, so it is profitable to spend a huge part of the product cost/price on advertising and promotion.
I agree to follow suit. Just as soon as you convince the rest of the world to stop funding information creation.
Let us know how that goes.
whatever it is, and deserves a return on that invesment?
They do deserve to get paid for their efforts. But any way of paying which involves the restricting the spread of the information they have created is flawed to the bones.
but reject any costs at all
No, I am not rejecting cost. I am rejecting the current system.
would you be willing to have a portion of each paycheck docked to cover compensation for the creation of things currently covered by copyright, or education for aspiring artists (no, public school doesn't count, certainly not in the US - even public universities are very expensive)?
I would. In fact, in my country a small part of my paycheck is already compensating various artists. As for universities, they are already funded by the government.
Also, even though my other posts may sound aggressive, I am not against giving money to information producers. I do pay for information sometimes. What I am against is restricting people from using information on the basis that it is a good way of compensating the producers. It isn't. It is a horrible way of running the system.
Believe it or not, you have this backwards. By setting the value of any particular copy of the work at zero, you are destroying all value of the work itself in terms of the economy,
I know what you mean. This air I am breathing is totally valueless in the economy. Sucks doesn't it. Maybe you could lobby for some laws that would change that.
Conversely, by setting a specific value on each copy, there becomes an economic motivation to create such works, which in turn creates value for society.
No, it unfortunately doesn't. While copyright may create more works, it simultaneously reduces the spread of same works. It is the nature of the beast.
Rejection of the "I take what I want" attitude that pervades our society is in no way immoral
I don't have a "take what I want" attitude. What I do have is a disdain for waste in society. And preventing someone from consuming a copy of something is waste.
Copying doesn't cost resources, and therefore putting a price on it is immoral. If you want compensate people for creating information, invent a system that doesn't restrict distribution of information. Otherwise I will not have anything to do with it, and will go on calling it wasteful corruption.
Claiming "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so shut up!" may be true in theory, but it's not relevant. It's not about control, it's not about lording money over the poor folks who would oh-so-love to use your product if only they could afford it. It's about realizing that there is a value to peoples' time and that they deserve to be compensated for that time if they so wish.
Yes, the deserve to be compensated. But restricting access to information is not the way to do it. And it will never be the way to do it. The problem is that those in favor of copyright will keep confusing the issue and claim that compensation equals copyright.
That is what I am fighting against. And it isn't just copyright. It applies equally well to patents. I am sick of seeing countless westerns supporting death sentences on huge amounts of third world inhabitants yearly in the name of copyright and capitalism.
It sounds awfully like you're the one who wants to strive backward into the middle ages. I'm sorry that people making money from non-tangible goods doesn't meet with your approval, but that's the way we've gone as a global society.
Don't presume to speak for a global society. Who you are speaking for is a small group of western elites.
That you would literally attack somebody who suggests maybe, just maybe, you should actually have to compensate people who create something rather than just taking it as you please makes you little more than a neanderthal, desperately trying to provide some sort of moral justification for something you planned on doing anyway.
I attacked someone who told someone else to stop listen to things that were expensive even though that someone else wasn't wasting any resources of society. There wasn't a "maybe you should compensate the people" involved.
Well, actually compensation was mentioned further down. When he suggested that you buy an inferior program to compensate a completely different developer. So that is what the world has come to. Tell people to use crappy information, when we could just as easily have them using the better information at no extra cost.
You're right; stealing is
Haha. Now I know that you are a simple bullshitting lier. Just have to look a couple of paragraphs above to find the inconsistency in your argument...
I've fought long and hard against people who call downloading music, movies or software "theft" or "stealing,"
.....Thanks for proving that you are the neanderthal troll.
Go and rot in and hell.
Because it does not take the same amount of time to develop, and that is what you're paying for, correct? Why do we get so incensed when people violate the GPL/BSD/Apache/whatever licenses but we have no problem when people violate commercial licenses, despite the fact they all use the same copyright laws?
But the programs have already been developed. Restricting copying after the fact is just pure waste. Forcing people to use inferior programs when there is no extra cost to society is uneconomical and little more than a bi product of a corrupt capitalistic system.
And no, I don't get incensed when people violate open source licenses.
How would you authenticate multiplayer if your game is something other than FPS or RTS, where all four players are holding USB gamepads and looking at one HDTV monitor?
Of course you can't authenticate split screen multi player gaming. I just thought that the readers of my post would be bright enough to grasp that the multi player aspect I was referring to was when you have servers controlled by the publisher, coordinating the multi player.
So you argument is basically that development time costs nothing?
No it isn't. It is your argument that my argument is that.
Just because the process of copying the media is the same whether you're copying a game that's taken 2 years of paid development time to create and a load of CVs you've written yourself doesn't mean the value is the same.
And what does developer time has to do with copying a finished copy. Nothing, since a finished work can't be undone.
Now, if you want to claim that free market economy doesn't work well with an information economy, go ahead. I won't stop you, since you would be right. But claiming that forbidding copying is a good way to turn information into a well functioning free market economy is just plain bullshit.
The problem with your attitude is that without someone ultimately paying for the development time
Well, yes, if they want something new produced. But we are talking about stuff that already has been produced here. Don't confuse the issue.
what you steal wouldn't exist in the first place
Well, if it didn't exist I would copy it. So don't go talking about hypotheticals here. Oh, and your use of the word steal decreases my interest in any of your arguments by 90%, due to simple loss in credibility.
but if it weren't so easy to copy stuff what would you do? Go without?
I would consume far less. In fact, I did consume far less before the Internet became popular.
Piracy is so fashionable because it's so easy, intangible and apparently victimless
Piracy is fashionable because it is the right thing to do. It is easy and cheap and defines the progress that humanity has made in information technology. If it was easy and cheap to replicate physical material, I would be doing that also.
if your only option to get something was to pay for it or do without you'd either find a way to scrape together the cash if you needed it bad enough, or you wouldn't.
Of course. And that cash would represent the resources needed to produce what I wanted. Which is just another argument for piracy. The resources needed to produce a copy of an existing piece of information is near zero. I don't want new information, because that is costly.
If something's expensive, why do you feel the right to watch it/listen to it/use it, when others have to pay? Isn't it more ethical to just not pay?
What gives you the moral right to restrict him from listening to/using it. It isn't like there is some law of scarcity involved that makes it necessary to restrict access? No, in fact, the only reason to restrict access to him is so that you can feel superior. You own the lebensraum. Not him. And you just have to make that point.
As for convenience, that's no excuse at all, it's just laziness.
Laziness is the greatest virtue of all. It is mother of all inventions. Those who claim that it is a sin, are those who want to strive backwards into the middle ages.
As for pirating professional software for 'fun' or 'non-commercial' use, if you don't need all the features, then why not get a more limited program that does what you want and actually compensate a developer?
Why get a more limited program when the more advanced programs costs the exact same amount to copy. It is just wasting the resources of society to go with an inferior product. Of course, wasting resources is exactly what you are promoting. Efficiency is not in your vocabulary.
You don't have a right to use something for free just because you think it's too expensive.
You have the right to claim that, but it doesn't make it true.
To start out with, I would like to mention that I have pirated a lot in my lifetime. I pirated more when I was unemployed and poor, because I had lots of time and less money. I still pirate some, but nowadays I also buy more now that I am earning good money. But anyway, here is my viewpoint of piracy.
Most of the excuses pirates use are just that, excuses.
* Try before you buy! It does happen, but rarely.
* Everything sucks! Then why are you pirating it in the first place?
* Damn the evil publishers!! You really believe most pirates are like that?
Want to hear a valid excuse
* It is free to pirate, so I don't have to worry about money.
Now, you will here people mention that these games aren't really that expensive. But that misses the point. There is a huge difference between cheap and free, and it affects behavior a lot. When something is free, you can consume it without feeling like you have to get value out of it. And that gains a certain amount of freedom which is very difficult to compete with if you are trying to charge for a product.
Now, the article in question I actually found was fairly unbiased. It did mention that piracy is high as soon as the game is released. This is not strange at all. As pirates have no restrictions on them in regard to money, they will play whatever they feel like. And the newest thing on the market is simply an easy target.
This may point out that Pirates generally have a lower attention span they quickly move on to the next game
This is a nice observation in the article. I would say that it isn't attention span per se. It is just that pirates have a fare wider selection of items to select from. Again, having to do with the freedom I mentioned above.
The author goes on to discuss ways to combat piracy. And here I want to mention an important thing. If you use piracy protection to fight against piracy, then you are using it wrong. If you use piracy protection to steal customers from a competing product that doesn't have piracy protection then you are doing it right.
If you fail to understand the difference, it is simple. Pirates buy products too. And they are more likely to buy something if they get value out of it beyond legal ownership. This is why authenticated multi player mode is a very efficient piracy protection mechanism. It gives the pirates something that they want to buy, without providing any negative effects on other customers (who may or may not pirate other products).
It is the same in other businesses. If a pirate has to decided between buying a CD of one artist, or attending a live performance of another artist, guess what they will choose. Same with DVD vs. movie theater.
Of course, there are always pirates that won't buy anything. Either because they have no money, or because they intend to use that money for other things. But, those are the kind of pirates that simply aren't worth spending any effort on. At best you can hope that their money habits will change over time, and that you as a developer will be a beneficiary.
So, by your analysis any array of binary content has no value?
He is correct. Binary content does not have any market value. It does have real value (which is the value in the eye of the buyer). And it does have artificial value which comes from government enforced violence to prevent copying. But, no, it doesn't have any (or at least extremely low) market value due to the way it can be replicated. It is basic supply and demand theory. Economy 101.
Copyright and patent law reduces the actually usage of information due to artificial costs, in fact making society poorer as well as reducing the general efficiency of any industry involved. The only winners are the top dogs of the content industry (that pick up all the winnings at the expense of the bottom 90% plus the rest of the economy) and the government officials who get to claim that the GDP is higher and collect taxes on it, even though it is wasted money for the whole economy.
Functional: a standard six-foot antenna is bolted to the roof of every car. It may be over-sized and look ridiculous, but it gets the job done.
That just sounds wrong. Functional would be something like this.
Functional: It uses several small serially connected identical antennas that can receive audio with mathematically guaranteed perfect quality. Although with one quick. However many times you switch to a certain frequency, it always plays the exact same music.
At least there's a benefit for shareholders in the scary corporation scenario.
With companies, shareholders only benefit as long as they elect board members that have the corporations wellbeing in first mind. As soon as the board members start to only have their own interest or agenda in mind, you start to get bad results. (although it may take some time for the bad results to shine through as the board members of course will hide them to make them self look better)
The same is true for government.
Agreed. And even when actual education is needed, there needs to be questions about how much education. I think any potential programmer could do well with a year to maybe 1 1/2 years of education.
Basic algorithms (including simple complexity theory). The different ways of programming (functional, OO, declarative). Some basic discrete math and logic. And some other things. But really, you don't need a master's degree. If anything, getting some real life programming experience is more important.
I didn't say that distribution is a waste. I said that there is a lot of waste going on in distribution. There is slight but important difference between the two.
I watched one of Adam Curtis documentaries, and I liked what one of the people that got interviewed said. The below is from memory so is probably not 100% word for word.
- Corrupt is your word. It isn't the word I would use.
- What word would you use?
- They were seduced.
It just hit spot on. People are seduced by ideas and once it becomes ingrained into their minds, it is very hard to see the problems with the idea. It must be a good idea because it sounds so good, and if you just look around you can see all the evidence supporting the idea. And if there is some contradicting evidence, then it is obviously because of a completely different reason and not because of the idea itself.
$2 per sale of a $40 book
And it keeps repeating on and on in the IP industry. Wasn't there a Slashdot article not long ago that EA was spending three times as much on marketing as they did on developer costs. The stories about artists getting screwed is numerous. And Hollywood has even given name to an accounting type used for screwing other people out of money. And it isn't just the copyright industries. Pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than they on research. And the list goes on.
And there are actually people that believe that intellectual property laws are good for society? The truth is that there is an incredible waste going on in distribution, middle man skimming, advertising, manufacturing, warehousing and so on. What starts out as $2 of information becomes $40 in the store. And this is the standard, not the exception. Even when sold via the Internet via digital distribution, it still becomes over $20.
The sad truth is that todays society could easily support a 10 hour work week if we got rid of all the inefficiencies and wasted job efforts. But it will not happen in the current society, because neither side (socialists nor capitalists) are interested in getting rid of such inefficiencies. In fact, if there is one thing that everyone can agree on, it would be that people should work and work some more "to make a better society".
And what about all those who don't want to fight, not because they are weak, but because they don't like fighting. Of course, you don't have an answer to that. Because your attitude stinks of the fighter mentality. Your choice of words like "proving yourself" is very revealing.
It is people like you who encourage young people to fight that is the problem. Perpetuating and encouraging violence in society is not a good solution.
And yes, I have stood up for myself, but I will never be proud of it, and I will not respect those who I stood up to. Violence is not something to be respected for. At best it is a last resort when other things didn't work. But when kids are forced to resort to violence because of the inaction of adults, then it is a failure of the adults.
and they were finally successful in having the state government pass a law barring local governments from selling access, instead they have to sell to other service providers.
It is no wonder the USians consider the government inefficient. It is so corrupt that it convicts its uncorrupted parts for the crime of performing a public service.
The only difference between a negative and positive right is that a negative right's imposition is miniscule and the action going against its imposition is usually a ridiculous thing for a person to do
From my understanding, libertarians have somehow managed to classify property rights as a negative right. And that is definitely not something that has a minuscule imposition.
Of course, the real question here is if property rights actually are a negative right at all. From my perspective, it looks and behaves a lot like most positive rights.
The concept of freedom revolves around negative rights
Bullshit propaganda from libertarian play book. Your construct of negative versus positive rights is self-serving bullshit. When you stop forcing me to pay for policemen to protect your property and courts to enforce your contracts I'll start taking you seriously. (Or maybe not. But I'll at least show some respect for the consistency)
The only problem I see here is, how you get the consent of a goat? And ensure that the consent isn't just because of abuse of power.
You don't have to *force* anyone to *recognize* your rights
So you aren't threatening to lock me up if I put a bullet through your head? You aren't threatening to put me in prison when I try to violate your property laws? Just who do you think you are kidding. It always comes back to force. It is the fundamental rule of nature. Those who are strong decided over those who are weak. Society is simply an extension of that where multiple individuals group together under common ideas and compromise. And if an idea is common enough, it may be made into a societal right.
Finally, if the society is strong enough it may conduct talks with other societies and come up with a list of "human rights" that they all recognize. But that of course has little real meaning, unless societies are willing to stand up to societies that violates those "rights".
Rights ensure your freedom, but not at the cost of imposing on others.
Are you a lawyer or salesman by any chance, because this is some serious word twisting. If you aren't imposing on anyone, you simply don't need to have your "rights" ensured, because well, [b]you aren't fricking imposing on anyone[/b]
Fortunately for you, you are living in a society that has decided that you have a right to live, and is willing to put its force behind that. As such, even though your existence is imposing on me, I am less likely to stick a knife into your stomach and watch your face as you squirm and die, as I would get punished for it. No offense intended. Just making a point that a mere existence can impose on someone else. In fact, there was a famous man not too long ago who thought that Jews were imposing on him and got into a position of power where he could do something about it.
You are entitled to say whatever the fuck you want in your home to anyone willing to listen
Only because society permits you. In a totalitarian system you often aren't. The plain truth is that the only "rights" you have are those that you are able to defend by force. When a society says that a human right exists, what they mean is that they recognize a law as covering all humans, and will use force against violators.
Of course, a society has to actually are willing to use force and not idly stand by, as otherwise the "right" is little more than bureaucratic bullshit speak.