A UI shouldn't take up all your screen space or make it hard to see the controls. A UI should guess what you want to do before you do it (drop down boxes are always better than edit boxes). This is the best way to speed up the manual part of the program. It should be self-explanatory (you should never have to even look in the help file). I hate having to learn new shortcuts or go through the entire menu just to find "prefferences". These are the 3 main gripes I have against most interfaces.
The fact is it is not mp3's that are the "problem", it is CD's. As long as this insecure music format exists it will be possible to rip a CD track and share it over the internet.
If record companies start losing money (which they are still a long way away from doing with all the CD players out there), then they will just come out with some audio-DVD format which will likely put a temporary end to mp3 piracy for new music. When that format is cracked and they lose money again, they will just come up with some new encryption algorithm. It is an vicious cycle that can only end with artists becoming entirely independent and ditching the record labels. But in any case this is not an overnight end to the RIAA. They will be around for a long time and they have made so much money in the past, they could lose money 10 years in a row and still not die.
I don't see how government funding would prevent free speech...All we are doing is submitting the statistics about how many people downloaded britney spears or whatever and then the government pays her a representative amount.
Everyone profits from information through one form or another, be it technology, software, music, movies, books.... Then why not compensate artists/authors through taxes? Information is a need of society, arguably as important as roads or army or anything else. So let's encourage it! The entire general public would have access to any information they wanted, and open source would seem an inevitable conclusion. It would also be extremely fair because tax brackets allow everyone to pay according to their ablity to do so. We could compensate creators according to quantity of labour and its quality (in the case of music quality = # of downloads?) Companies could also contribute to the fund and could even compensate specific authors in terms of demand. In any case, regardless of how the system would be inplemented exaclty, doesn't it seem logical for society as a whole to encourage the creation and exchange of ideas and art.
I think you missed the point. It is not that the information is of poor quality or that the creation/work should not be rewarded. The point is it is wrong to try and control distribution of something that can otherwise be shared freely and would help society grow.
He is not encouraging youth to steal, he is encouraging them/us to do what intuitively makes sense: share.
-most authors/artists would be glad to know the work is gaining more exposure (which is what would happen if RIAA/publishers did not control distribution)
-If I share something that I would not have bought anyway then I am getting something extra and nobody is losing anything
-If I try and prevent others from sharing without it hurting you (i.e. controlling distribution through monopolistic behaviour) than this is immoral because it hurts society.
-In principle, the originators of ideas/information should be paid for the quantity/quality of their work, not for it's distribution, that way information sharing can take place.
Slashdot Mirror
A UI shouldn't take up all your screen space or make it hard to see the controls. A UI should guess what you want to do before you do it (drop down boxes are always better than edit boxes). This is the best way to speed up the manual part of the program. It should be self-explanatory (you should never have to even look in the help file). I hate having to learn new shortcuts or go through the entire menu just to find "prefferences". These are the 3 main gripes I have against most interfaces.
While we're at it, sue God for giving us bodies, brains, eyes and vocal cords, which can all be misused! Darnit God be more careful next time!
The fact is it is not mp3's that are the "problem", it is CD's. As long as this insecure music format exists it will be possible to rip a CD track and share it over the internet.
If record companies start losing money (which they are still a long way away from doing with all the CD players out there), then they will just come out with some audio-DVD format which will likely put a temporary end to mp3 piracy for new music. When that format is cracked and they lose money again, they will just come up with some new encryption algorithm. It is an vicious cycle that can only end with artists becoming entirely independent and ditching the record labels.
But in any case this is not an overnight end to the RIAA. They will be around for a long time and they have made so much money in the past, they could lose money 10 years in a row and still not die.
I don't see how government funding would prevent free speech...All we are doing is submitting the statistics about how many people downloaded britney spears or whatever and then the government pays her a representative amount.
Everyone profits from information through one form or another, be it technology, software, music, movies, books....
Then why not compensate artists/authors through taxes? Information is a need of society, arguably as important as roads or army or anything else. So let's encourage it!
The entire general public would have access to any information they wanted, and open source would seem an inevitable conclusion.
It would also be extremely fair because tax brackets allow everyone to pay according to their ablity to do so.
We could compensate creators according to quantity of labour and its quality (in the case of music quality = # of downloads?)
Companies could also contribute to the fund and could even compensate specific authors in terms of demand.
In any case, regardless of how the system would be inplemented exaclty, doesn't it seem logical for society as a whole to encourage the creation and exchange of ideas and art.
I think you missed the point. It is not that the information is of poor quality or that the creation/work should not be rewarded. The point is it is wrong to try and control distribution of something that can otherwise be shared freely and would help society grow.
He is not encouraging youth to steal, he is encouraging them/us to do what intuitively makes sense: share.
just a few points to a well written article:
-most authors/artists would be glad to know the work is gaining more exposure (which is what would happen if RIAA/publishers did not control distribution)
-If I share something that I would not have bought anyway then I am getting something extra and nobody is losing anything
-If I try and prevent others from sharing without it hurting you (i.e. controlling distribution through monopolistic behaviour) than this is immoral because it hurts society.
-In principle, the originators of ideas/information should be paid for the quantity/quality of their work, not for it's distribution, that way information sharing can take place.