I would be nice if you could buy an unsubsidized version - one that could legitimately have all those abilities because it wouldn't rely on post-purchase sales of software/media to pay for the console. Sure it would be considerably more costly but it would be nice to have the option.
Personally I think it's the only thing that should be on the list, otherwise it just legitimises Sony's claims that they did it to stop piracy.
I agree with everything else you said but im not sure this is right, the piracy situation only happened at the time of the otheros removal - perhaps it was just coincidence but it does seem like an eye-for-an-eye. If Sony wants right done by them - with a banning of modchips - then they need to do right by the consumer and give them back the feature they paid for, they can't have it both ways.
As terrible as the news is, there is still hope. The law isn't passed yet.
Well that's some good news, good luck with that and remember to lobby everyone you can. Politicians will listen to their constituents but only if they're loud enough.
Well obviously i mean in the context of successfully exploiting the capitalist economy. Just because you made something doesn't entitle you to compensation, but if you made something people actually want then you can expect to make a profit and have your costs paid - indirectly (if that helps you) - by the people who want your product.
I think you're using the wrong terminology. "Out of pocket" refers to the spending of one's own money. The party that is "out of pocket" for production, recording, promotion, etc. is not the consumer.
Being 'out of pocket' refers to having expended financial resources - that have not been reimbursed - at the end of an enterprise. You are using the term in reference to the middle of an enterprise, where the costs have been incurred but not recovered yet, obviously that means either you failed or you haven't begun recouping costs yet.
By saying that the consumers are "out of pocket" for production, you're saying that the consumers paid directly for the production costs, which would be like patronage (which would cut out the middleman--not a bad idea, but not common).
Whether it's directly or indirectly makes no difference. In terms of the consumer you're right they aren't 'out of pocket', because it doesn't just refer to 'spending money' (since they are reimbursed with goods - be those real or digital) and instead just 'financially down'. But regardless of that those funds indirectly paid for the costs of the product, thats how enterprises work. The artist should not be out of pocket and nor should the investor.
Huh? That's completely the opposite of reality. The people who produce them spend their own money in advance, hoping to recoup the costs. They are EXACTLY out-of-pocket. Whether they are ultimately reimbursed by sales and to what extent is not guaranteed.
The ONLY way a product's costs are NOT paid for by the end consumer is if the product fails. At the end of the line - when the consumer has the product - it is the consumers who have covered the costs of the product. If this hasn't happened then the product - and likely the company (unless it's big enough to absorb the costs) - has failed.
What planet are you living on? The only way those costs would be paid for by the people who want the product would be through a system of patronage, paying the artist to produce a particular work.
The artist's costs are paid for by the investor (in the case of music it is usually the record label) and the investor's costs are paid for by the end consumer, that's how the system works. So - in the successful case - the only people out of pocket financially is the end user. If the costs weren't ultimately covered by the consumer then there would be no point in investing.
You asked the question:
why it is that the composer doesn't get paid once on delivery of the new song, the artists once for the recording session, and so on.
And you've still failed to answer my follow-up question of who you suggest would pay.
Goods (like physical media) are paid for by whoever produces them, hoping to recoup their costs and make a profit by selling them later. Just like any other good. (Or some can be produced on-demand.)
So ultimately, the cost of the item is paid for by the end consumer, the people who produce them aren't out of pocket.
Either way, the production of the recording, the master, and its associated costs are one-time expenses.
And that's my question, who would pay for that? At the moment those costs are paid for by the people who want the product (the ones who buy it).
If you paid a civil engineer to design your highway, do you think he should have any right to keep demanding a percentage of the money you make from those tolls because he's the one that came up with the design?
Well he can either take the riskier - but potentially more profitable - option of a stake in the company and therefore an entitlement to it's future profits. Or he can take a lump sum payment and his work is the property of the company.
The music in it is something completely separate and it is interesting to ask why it is that the composer doesn't get paid once on delivery of the new song, the artists once for the recording session, and so on.
The real question is who would pay for that? I mean goods (and their development costs) are paid for by people who want them and thus purchase them.
You don't need to have backups of your data and you can access your data everywhere given that you have an internet connection.
Yeah because Google and Amazon have never had any downtime, Amazon hasn't suspended wikileaks services under pressure from external sources and Danger never had a catastrophic failure with Sidekick data.
'the cloud'? You can't just put something in 'the cloud'.
You could accomplish the same thing without the cloud, but it would involve transparent synchronization between all your devices, and that's a problem nobody's adequately solved.
I will not even try to decipher that one, it looks like your definition of "cloud computing" is different than...well, actually, there is not even a standard definition, so I guess the point is moot.
Most people don't know what 'cloud computing' is and just assume it is many of the things we've had since the dawn of the web. Thanks to that we have idiotic terms like 'in the cloud', which makes no freakin' sense at all.
There are advantages to these "do it in the cloud" ideas, though. Google's promoting of Chrome OS makes the advantages clear: you can access your documents from anywhere
That's not a 'cloud computing' feature, you can serve your documents from just about any internet connected system.
This whole 'cloud computing' term seems to confuse a lot of people, the advantage (or disadvantage) of it - and the way it is differentiated from any other internet connected device serving data and other web services - is that you hand the responsibility of storing your data to a company, you don't know where it is stored or what the backup procedures are and you don't control the security or privacy but the company is supposed to take care of that for you. As we have seen with the Sidekick, Amazon (with wikileaks and hardware failures), Google's various outages, etc... you cannot always trust that company.
I think you've missed the point. They were all Spartacus! The point was that you can kill the man, but you can't kill the idea.
If you take one of us out, another will step into their boots.
This is exactly like the guys (in that old movie) saying "I am Spartacus."
No it isn't, saying 'I'm Spartacus' meant they had a group of people all claiming to be one man, they thought killing that man would kill the idea. Everyone already knows that anonymous is an idea and not one person and that taking out one person that claims to be anonymous won't kill the group or the idea but merely discourage participation. So saying 'I'm Anonymous' is just admitting you are part of a criminal group.
But still, when he reacts to the industry's method of framing a discussion by careful choice of terminology by doing the same thing himself (i.e. "it's not trusted computing, it's treacherous computing!" or "it's not cloud computing, it's careless computing!") I can't help but think of a whiny kid in a schoolyard name-calling match.
That's why few people take him seriously, all the good ideas he has are buried under a mountain of these petty name-calling battles. Most people prefer iphones, ipads, gmail, etc... because they are easier. Things like the N900 are GREAT devices and FAR more capable than the iPhone but in the end they are also far more complicated. Yes you get the freedom but for most people it's freedom for the sake of freedom, and at the cost of usability. The FSF needs someone who can appeal to users and corporations to meet both their needs AND the FSF's.
Slashdot Mirror
Though this is still almost a year old: Under the 'legal' heading.
FFS - it was a joke.
His government internet filter censors humor.
Banning all torrents, usernet access, or file shareing sites such as Rapidshare, Uploading, DepositFiles, etc???
No to mention anonymous proxies, encryption...
and doing it on google.com gives you a 33-33-33 ... rigged?
Now, if only someone could "hack in", as the kids call it these days
These days posting a facebook status under someone else's account - regardless of how you obtained access - seems to be referred to as 'hacking'.
I would be nice if you could buy an unsubsidized version - one that could legitimately have all those abilities because it wouldn't rely on post-purchase sales of software/media to pay for the console. Sure it would be considerably more costly but it would be nice to have the option.
Personally I think it's the only thing that should be on the list, otherwise it just legitimises Sony's claims that they did it to stop piracy.
I agree with everything else you said but im not sure this is right, the piracy situation only happened at the time of the otheros removal - perhaps it was just coincidence but it does seem like an eye-for-an-eye. If Sony wants right done by them - with a banning of modchips - then they need to do right by the consumer and give them back the feature they paid for, they can't have it both ways.
As terrible as the news is, there is still hope. The law isn't passed yet.
Well that's some good news, good luck with that and remember to lobby everyone you can. Politicians will listen to their constituents but only if they're loud enough.
What do you mean by "should"?
Well obviously i mean in the context of successfully exploiting the capitalist economy. Just because you made something doesn't entitle you to compensation, but if you made something people actually want then you can expect to make a profit and have your costs paid - indirectly (if that helps you) - by the people who want your product.
I think you're using the wrong terminology. "Out of pocket" refers to the spending of one's own money. The party that is "out of pocket" for production, recording, promotion, etc. is not the consumer.
Being 'out of pocket' refers to having expended financial resources - that have not been reimbursed - at the end of an enterprise. You are using the term in reference to the middle of an enterprise, where the costs have been incurred but not recovered yet, obviously that means either you failed or you haven't begun recouping costs yet.
By saying that the consumers are "out of pocket" for production, you're saying that the consumers paid directly for the production costs, which would be like patronage (which would cut out the middleman--not a bad idea, but not common).
Whether it's directly or indirectly makes no difference. In terms of the consumer you're right they aren't 'out of pocket', because it doesn't just refer to 'spending money' (since they are reimbursed with goods - be those real or digital) and instead just 'financially down'. But regardless of that those funds indirectly paid for the costs of the product, thats how enterprises work. The artist should not be out of pocket and nor should the investor.
Huh? That's completely the opposite of reality. The people who produce them spend their own money in advance, hoping to recoup the costs. They are EXACTLY out-of-pocket. Whether they are ultimately reimbursed by sales and to what extent is not guaranteed.
The ONLY way a product's costs are NOT paid for by the end consumer is if the product fails. At the end of the line - when the consumer has the product - it is the consumers who have covered the costs of the product. If this hasn't happened then the product - and likely the company (unless it's big enough to absorb the costs) - has failed.
What planet are you living on? The only way those costs would be paid for by the people who want the product would be through a system of patronage, paying the artist to produce a particular work.
The artist's costs are paid for by the investor (in the case of music it is usually the record label) and the investor's costs are paid for by the end consumer, that's how the system works. So - in the successful case - the only people out of pocket financially is the end user. If the costs weren't ultimately covered by the consumer then there would be no point in investing.
You asked the question:
why it is that the composer doesn't get paid once on delivery of the new song, the artists once for the recording session, and so on.
And you've still failed to answer my follow-up question of who you suggest would pay.
Huh?
Goods (like physical media) are paid for by whoever produces them, hoping to recoup their costs and make a profit by selling them later. Just like any other good. (Or some can be produced on-demand.)
So ultimately, the cost of the item is paid for by the end consumer, the people who produce them aren't out of pocket.
Either way, the production of the recording, the master, and its associated costs are one-time expenses.
And that's my question, who would pay for that? At the moment those costs are paid for by the people who want the product (the ones who buy it).
1) would that really bypass the court order?
Well the court order specifically refers to that clause, if that clause no longer exists then the court order is useless.
Are Twitter at any point going to get a revenue stream?
Ah the Ponzi scheme.
If you paid a civil engineer to design your highway, do you think he should have any right to keep demanding a percentage of the money you make from those tolls because he's the one that came up with the design?
Well he can either take the riskier - but potentially more profitable - option of a stake in the company and therefore an entitlement to it's future profits. Or he can take a lump sum payment and his work is the property of the company.
The music in it is something completely separate and it is interesting to ask why it is that the composer doesn't get paid once on delivery of the new song, the artists once for the recording session, and so on.
The real question is who would pay for that? I mean goods (and their development costs) are paid for by people who want them and thus purchase them.
Really? What about house builders, infrastructure?
They get a large up-front payment as opposed to long drawn-out payments over many years.
I'm voluntarily allowing Google to serve ads to me in return for free services.
And you could voluntarily allow Google to take some of your money in return for free services.
Ah Stallman
You don't need to have backups of your data and you can access your data everywhere given that you have an internet connection.
Yeah because Google and Amazon have never had any downtime, Amazon hasn't suspended wikileaks services under pressure from external sources and Danger never had a catastrophic failure with Sidekick data.
Now, 'the cloud' really just translates to 'some company running servers for you'.
On a server somewhere, backed up somehow and it may or may not have some kind of enforced security and privacy policies.
Right, this is why the cloud is attractive.
'the cloud'? You can't just put something in 'the cloud'.
You could accomplish the same thing without the cloud, but it would involve transparent synchronization between all your devices, and that's a problem nobody's adequately solved.
err...web server?
I will not even try to decipher that one, it looks like your definition of "cloud computing" is different than...well, actually, there is not even a standard definition, so I guess the point is moot.
Most people don't know what 'cloud computing' is and just assume it is many of the things we've had since the dawn of the web. Thanks to that we have idiotic terms like 'in the cloud', which makes no freakin' sense at all.
There are advantages to these "do it in the cloud" ideas, though. Google's promoting of Chrome OS makes the advantages clear: you can access your documents from anywhere
That's not a 'cloud computing' feature, you can serve your documents from just about any internet connected system.
This whole 'cloud computing' term seems to confuse a lot of people, the advantage (or disadvantage) of it - and the way it is differentiated from any other internet connected device serving data and other web services - is that you hand the responsibility of storing your data to a company, you don't know where it is stored or what the backup procedures are and you don't control the security or privacy but the company is supposed to take care of that for you. As we have seen with the Sidekick, Amazon (with wikileaks and hardware failures), Google's various outages, etc... you cannot always trust that company.
I think you've missed the point. They were all Spartacus! The point was that you can kill the man, but you can't kill the idea.
If you take one of us out, another will step into their boots.
This is exactly like the guys (in that old movie) saying "I am Spartacus."
No it isn't, saying 'I'm Spartacus' meant they had a group of people all claiming to be one man, they thought killing that man would kill the idea. Everyone already knows that anonymous is an idea and not one person and that taking out one person that claims to be anonymous won't kill the group or the idea but merely discourage participation. So saying 'I'm Anonymous' is just admitting you are part of a criminal group.
But still, when he reacts to the industry's method of framing a discussion by careful choice of terminology by doing the same thing himself (i.e. "it's not trusted computing, it's treacherous computing!" or "it's not cloud computing, it's careless computing!") I can't help but think of a whiny kid in a schoolyard name-calling match.
That's why few people take him seriously, all the good ideas he has are buried under a mountain of these petty name-calling battles. Most people prefer iphones, ipads, gmail, etc... because they are easier. Things like the N900 are GREAT devices and FAR more capable than the iPhone but in the end they are also far more complicated. Yes you get the freedom but for most people it's freedom for the sake of freedom, and at the cost of usability. The FSF needs someone who can appeal to users and corporations to meet both their needs AND the FSF's.