This country was FOUNDED on the idea of state's rights, regardless of how far away we've gone from that.
The federal government was supposed to provide for a common defense and regulate interstate commerce (in a somewhat EU like manner, but there's too many differences). The states were supposed to be largely independent.
The constitution specified SPECIFIC duties of the federal government and left EVERYTHING ELSE to the states or individuals.
If you're thinking that doesn't sound like how the U.S. is run today, you'd be pretty smart.
And yes, we vote for individuals... it should be a good way to do it, because you are supposed to get an ideology but with an individual's nuance, which should be clearly stated before the election. It doesn't work out that way, though. Today we more or less treat it like you're voting for a party. Not me, but it's true for the majority of voters, sadly.
I think the problem with the claim "Cleveland pays $30 a ton to dump garbage in landfills, but earns $26 a ton for recyclables" is that people aren't putting it in the context that they have a hundred times more "generic" garbage that gets dumped in a landfill than they do recyclables.
Yeah... we have Nooks, too; it would seem that a publisher that actually is working on behalf of authors would get wider distribution than just Amazon, but I least look at this as a step in the right direction...
Unfortunately, all it means is that publishers will saddle make authors sign contracts giving up "e-rights," too; probably far too few authors will be able to negotiate out of that one.
I'm still looking forward to being able to get textbook style books (like all my programming books) in e-form....
That's a fine idea... the problem is that I've read most of the "classics" that I really wanted to, and while I've downloaded more, the fact remains I want to read what I want to read an won't limit myself to 100 year old stuff.
Still, about half the stuff on my kids readers was free, and I'm reading my "real" book right now, but when I'm done I'll be borrowing one of my kid's Nooks.
The ONLY reason to buy one of these is convenience... not money. I think that's criminal seeing as the biggest cost to publishers is printing and shipping, but whatever... your attitude is definitely the right one... there's plenty of free books out there, and if you like the classics then you can buy a reader and have enough reading to last you years and years without restrictions.
The DMCA actually says that circumventing DRM is illegal; it doesn't matter if you do it to make a legal back.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, it's distribution of the method to circumvent the DRM that is illegal.
Most importantly, the e-books have a license... they are not physical copies, and if you agree to the terms and conditions of "buying" an e-book (license), you are giving up your right to resell or give the content away...
So not only are you violating the DMCA, you'd also be violating the agreement you made when you bought the e-reader and e-books.
I'm not arguing right/wrong, I'm discussing legality and the publishing company's ability to use force of government to enforce it.
Yes, I was looking for someone to point this out before I posted... I'd give you mod points if I had them. It's a very disingenuous statement when you consider they probably sell many times the number of paperbacks that they do hard covers.
I also wonder what they consider a "sale." Some e-books are ZERO cost, like a lot of the out-of-copyright classics, but they still get listed on Amazon, just with zero cost... so even it makes sense people "order" a lot of books they might not otherwise have gotten.
I have two Nooks... believe me, I did not buy them for the "lend" feature, which is nearly pointless in it's implementation...
SOME publishers "allow" some books to be lent... ONE TIME ONLY, and ONLY for fourteen days. After that, you can not lend it anymore.
By buying into e-books (which I've done, I had my reasons why I ultimately thought it was a good way to go), you are removing any right to resale/donate you have with other books.
Because of this fact, cost of books should not enter the equation for determining whether to buy an e-book reader or not... most of the paperbacks I looked into cost less than a dollar more than the e-book version, and you didn't give up your rights.
First, we're talking about new books, not classics that you can get for free from a number of sources, and that can be read by a number of different e-readers on top of free software you can download.
Now, you can take the illegal (in most places) action of removing DRM, but if you follow the guidelines you have very little freedom with e-books.
For popular books in paperback, you don't even save much money... the ONLY reason to buy e-books is for the convenience of carrying your library with you. And while you may save a dollar (not even that, for most of the books I was looking into), you lose right to resell or donate the book when you're done with it. Period.
I still decided to get two because there are some other benefits. First of all, it WAS convenient. Second, I bought them for my kids, and they are voracious readers, which I think it great, but they are only two years apart in school and read a lot of the same books (Guardians of Ga'hoole, now... a 15 book series), and with both devices registered to the same account, I buy a book once and they both get it.
Now that prices have dropped for Nook, too (thanks to Amazon for lowering their prices), I may get one for me. I've gotten tons of free new books, too, and all the classics I've ever been interested in (which is, granted, not that many in the grand scheme of things).
But loss of resale rights does bother me, and these devices won't last forever... I would normally save books forever to lend and even have grand-kids read them some day, which doesn't seem possible with these devices.
Don't get me wrong, I think piracy is wrong and I have never heard anyone give me a valid justification for pirating games, but it seems to me that it's more worthwhile to concentrate on providing the best content than it is to screw the honest customers with annoying DRM schemes that sometimes limits the honest users ability to enjoy the game.
I think, like the recent RIAA article pointed out, it's not worth the time or effort.
On top of that, you have to ask who, ultimately, pays for the lawyers and the DRM technology? I've always hated the thought that I'm paying for the technology that limits what I can do with the software I've legally purchased.
On my own personal domain, I have my personal account, an account I use for shopping, registrations, and several specifically for shopping that I use a lot (although I'm phasing these out in favor of just shopping), like Newegg and Amazon... so really, I'd have my personal account, a shopping account, and a registration account. I only use gmail for personal email, I'd like to use it for everything.
Ahh... but I do play games (sometimes), and I also do video editing (which, granted, doesn't require a lot of 3D performance). I don't buy $30 video cards, I buy cards that are actually quite good in the $100 range.
I understand the scale... if the high end of consumer cards is $400 or more, then $200 is more mid than high end, but the article frames this as being a "bargain" card.
If, on the other hand, you were to look at the median price paid for a new graphics card, I think it would be far below $200, in the $100+ range (of course, that's just my anecdotal experience). That would make the "average" gamer (yes, gamer, because everyone else is just using their "built in" graphics) have close to a $100 card.
People's perceptions are that they're not prepared to pay as much for digital content -- they make the connection that it's not a physical disc and therefore it should be cheaper.
I have this problem with eBooks, too... many paperbacks cost nearly just as much as the physical versions, but you have no right to resale.
I feel we're saving the manufacturers a pretty significant amount by buying electronic only versions, they ought to make it worthwhile for us... that is, unless they want to continue the self-fulfilling excuses for pirating.
As two large examples, I used to go to both CNN.com and FoxNews.com (which, one would hope, would give more more sides to a story than either one alone).
Right now I rarely use CNN.com, but I've long since stopped going to FoxNews.com, which became absolutely horrendous and took on the appearance of a supermarket checkout stand rag of a "news" paper. And I'm generally right leaning. The presentation was annoying.
Of course "nothing presented well" is still nothing, but I didn't think anyone would take that line literally. Would it be better to say "'little presented well' is more important than 'much presented poorly?'"
So, I guess what I'm really saying is that if you have no choice, then as long as the content is readable people will read it. But given more than one choice, presentation is extremely important.
I never said or implied that you, or people like you, want slavery.
Actually, the implication is there every time you say it, but we'll give it a pass and pretend that's not what you meant because you didn't say it outright.
I made the point that "the values upon which the nation was founded" includes slavery.
And your point is moronic, because slavery is not a "value" "upon which the nation was founded." In fact, the people who wrote the constitution had a lot of contentious debates about it and ended up compromising.
Slavery is not a "value" that this country was "founded on," I think you need to check your premises and try again. It was a very contentious issue even as the constitution was being drafted, and certainly wasn't a "value."
Don't idiots every get tired of blah-blahing that response over and over again?
No, wanting the federal government to act as outlined in the constitution does not mean we want slavery. Wanting the 10th amendment enforced does not mean we want slavery. Wanting local jurisdiction to have more control of their localities does not me we want slavery.
Do you guys ever get tired of spouting that bullshit?
Slashdot Mirror
This country was FOUNDED on the idea of state's rights, regardless of how far away we've gone from that.
The federal government was supposed to provide for a common defense and regulate interstate commerce (in a somewhat EU like manner, but there's too many differences). The states were supposed to be largely independent.
The constitution specified SPECIFIC duties of the federal government and left EVERYTHING ELSE to the states or individuals.
If you're thinking that doesn't sound like how the U.S. is run today, you'd be pretty smart.
And yes, we vote for individuals... it should be a good way to do it, because you are supposed to get an ideology but with an individual's nuance, which should be clearly stated before the election. It doesn't work out that way, though. Today we more or less treat it like you're voting for a party. Not me, but it's true for the majority of voters, sadly.
Over regulation can damage an industry? NO FREAKING WAY!
I think the problem with the claim "Cleveland pays $30 a ton to dump garbage in landfills, but earns $26 a ton for recyclables" is that people aren't putting it in the context that they have a hundred times more "generic" garbage that gets dumped in a landfill than they do recyclables.
Yeah.
I like python. A lot. But a lot of the language seems to have been motivated by the authors wanting people to use their style.
Yeah... they want to subsidize it? Sell them in the U.S. for $70... then for every one sold here, they can give one to someone who needs it there.
Yeah... we have Nooks, too; it would seem that a publisher that actually is working on behalf of authors would get wider distribution than just Amazon, but I least look at this as a step in the right direction...
Unfortunately, all it means is that publishers will saddle make authors sign contracts giving up "e-rights," too; probably far too few authors will be able to negotiate out of that one.
I'm still looking forward to being able to get textbook style books (like all my programming books) in e-form....
Still, it's a good baby step.
Yes, I had already gotten the nook... two of them, actually, for my kids (and me to borrow).
That's a fine idea... the problem is that I've read most of the "classics" that I really wanted to, and while I've downloaded more, the fact remains I want to read what I want to read an won't limit myself to 100 year old stuff.
Still, about half the stuff on my kids readers was free, and I'm reading my "real" book right now, but when I'm done I'll be borrowing one of my kid's Nooks.
The ONLY reason to buy one of these is convenience... not money. I think that's criminal seeing as the biggest cost to publishers is printing and shipping, but whatever... your attitude is definitely the right one... there's plenty of free books out there, and if you like the classics then you can buy a reader and have enough reading to last you years and years without restrictions.
The DMCA actually says that circumventing DRM is illegal; it doesn't matter if you do it to make a legal back.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, it's distribution of the method to circumvent the DRM that is illegal.
Most importantly, the e-books have a license... they are not physical copies, and if you agree to the terms and conditions of "buying" an e-book (license), you are giving up your right to resell or give the content away...
So not only are you violating the DMCA, you'd also be violating the agreement you made when you bought the e-reader and e-books.
I'm not arguing right/wrong, I'm discussing legality and the publishing company's ability to use force of government to enforce it.
Yes, I was looking for someone to point this out before I posted... I'd give you mod points if I had them. It's a very disingenuous statement when you consider they probably sell many times the number of paperbacks that they do hard covers.
I also wonder what they consider a "sale." Some e-books are ZERO cost, like a lot of the out-of-copyright classics, but they still get listed on Amazon, just with zero cost... so even it makes sense people "order" a lot of books they might not otherwise have gotten.
I have two Nooks... believe me, I did not buy them for the "lend" feature, which is nearly pointless in it's implementation...
SOME publishers "allow" some books to be lent... ONE TIME ONLY, and ONLY for fourteen days. After that, you can not lend it anymore.
By buying into e-books (which I've done, I had my reasons why I ultimately thought it was a good way to go), you are removing any right to resale/donate you have with other books.
Because of this fact, cost of books should not enter the equation for determining whether to buy an e-book reader or not... most of the paperbacks I looked into cost less than a dollar more than the e-book version, and you didn't give up your rights.
Just an anecdote... but I've read books that I could easily say that about... every other chapter was filler and actually annoyed the hell out of me.
They can be but they aren't.
First, we're talking about new books, not classics that you can get for free from a number of sources, and that can be read by a number of different e-readers on top of free software you can download.
Now, you can take the illegal (in most places) action of removing DRM, but if you follow the guidelines you have very little freedom with e-books.
For popular books in paperback, you don't even save much money... the ONLY reason to buy e-books is for the convenience of carrying your library with you. And while you may save a dollar (not even that, for most of the books I was looking into), you lose right to resell or donate the book when you're done with it. Period.
I still decided to get two because there are some other benefits. First of all, it WAS convenient. Second, I bought them for my kids, and they are voracious readers, which I think it great, but they are only two years apart in school and read a lot of the same books (Guardians of Ga'hoole, now... a 15 book series), and with both devices registered to the same account, I buy a book once and they both get it.
Now that prices have dropped for Nook, too (thanks to Amazon for lowering their prices), I may get one for me. I've gotten tons of free new books, too, and all the classics I've ever been interested in (which is, granted, not that many in the grand scheme of things).
But loss of resale rights does bother me, and these devices won't last forever... I would normally save books forever to lend and even have grand-kids read them some day, which doesn't seem possible with these devices.
Don't get me wrong, I think piracy is wrong and I have never heard anyone give me a valid justification for pirating games, but it seems to me that it's more worthwhile to concentrate on providing the best content than it is to screw the honest customers with annoying DRM schemes that sometimes limits the honest users ability to enjoy the game.
I think, like the recent RIAA article pointed out, it's not worth the time or effort.
On top of that, you have to ask who, ultimately, pays for the lawyers and the DRM technology? I've always hated the thought that I'm paying for the technology that limits what I can do with the software I've legally purchased.
On my own personal domain, I have my personal account, an account I use for shopping, registrations, and several specifically for shopping that I use a lot (although I'm phasing these out in favor of just shopping), like Newegg and Amazon... so really, I'd have my personal account, a shopping account, and a registration account. I only use gmail for personal email, I'd like to use it for everything.
Ahh... but I do play games (sometimes), and I also do video editing (which, granted, doesn't require a lot of 3D performance). I don't buy $30 video cards, I buy cards that are actually quite good in the $100 range.
I understand the scale... if the high end of consumer cards is $400 or more, then $200 is more mid than high end, but the article frames this as being a "bargain" card.
If, on the other hand, you were to look at the median price paid for a new graphics card, I think it would be far below $200, in the $100+ range (of course, that's just my anecdotal experience). That would make the "average" gamer (yes, gamer, because everyone else is just using their "built in" graphics) have close to a $100 card.
When a decent computer sells for $500, how is $200 "mid" range?
I must be getting old... I still have to hold my nose to pay more than $100 for a video card.
The MPAA and RIAA must have missed their monthly payment to President Lula.
Along with what you said:
People's perceptions are that they're not prepared to pay as much for digital content -- they make the connection that it's not a physical disc and therefore it should be cheaper.
I have this problem with eBooks, too... many paperbacks cost nearly just as much as the physical versions, but you have no right to resale.
I feel we're saving the manufacturers a pretty significant amount by buying electronic only versions, they ought to make it worthwhile for us... that is, unless they want to continue the self-fulfilling excuses for pirating.
As two large examples, I used to go to both CNN.com and FoxNews.com (which, one would hope, would give more more sides to a story than either one alone).
Right now I rarely use CNN.com, but I've long since stopped going to FoxNews.com, which became absolutely horrendous and took on the appearance of a supermarket checkout stand rag of a "news" paper. And I'm generally right leaning. The presentation was annoying.
Of course "nothing presented well" is still nothing, but I didn't think anyone would take that line literally. Would it be better to say "'little presented well' is more important than 'much presented poorly?'"
So, I guess what I'm really saying is that if you have no choice, then as long as the content is readable people will read it. But given more than one choice, presentation is extremely important.
I never said or implied that you, or people like you, want slavery.
Actually, the implication is there every time you say it, but we'll give it a pass and pretend that's not what you meant because you didn't say it outright.
I made the point that "the values upon which the nation was founded" includes slavery.
And your point is moronic, because slavery is not a "value" "upon which the nation was founded." In fact, the people who wrote the constitution had a lot of contentious debates about it and ended up compromising.
Slavery is not a "value" that this country was "founded on," I think you need to check your premises and try again. It was a very contentious issue even as the constitution was being drafted, and certainly wasn't a "value."
Don't idiots every get tired of blah-blahing that response over and over again?
No, wanting the federal government to act as outlined in the constitution does not mean we want slavery. Wanting the 10th amendment enforced does not mean we want slavery. Wanting local jurisdiction to have more control of their localities does not me we want slavery.
Do you guys ever get tired of spouting that bullshit?
Excellent post, IMO... I hate arguing with the idiots that purposely conflate local and federal taxation and services.
Well, as a slashdot reader, my first reaction had nothing to with correlation or causation... it's "so?"