If you HAVE heard of the artist and DO like their work then your copy has the same effect on the artist's finances as if you had just taken the legitimate price out of their wallet.
Well, no, that would mean they had less money after the copy was made.
I see what you're doing, though: you're comparing their actual finances, here in the real world, to their hypothetical finances in a fantasy world where information can't be copied. But if you're going to do that, why not compare to a fantasy world where the album got better reviews and more people were willing to pay for it? Or a fantasy world where there were no DVDs and video games released that year, so people had to spend their entertainment money on music?
That is, you could just as easily claim that reviewers and competing forms of entertainment are "depriving" the artist of money, because if not for them, the artist would sell more copies. Of course, that'd be just as silly as claiming that copying takes money away from them.
However, if you have tracks that you listen to regularly that you did not pay for then you're in a completely different boat and are simply insisting that someone works to entertain you for free. Because, like, you're some sort of royalty or something.
Completely wrong.
No one is insisting that anyone work for free. The work has already been done by the time anyone has a chance to make copies! File sharing programs don't magically reach back through time and force anyone to do any extra work.
If they chose to work for free in the past, gambling on the chance that they might be able to sell copies in the future to make up for it, then they have to face the possibility that, like any gamble, they might lose. All the more reason not to work for free.
That's a load of childish wank, but I know people like you have to parrot your ideologies even when they are totally outmoded, so go ahead and knock yourself out.
Making the copy doesn't deprive anyone of anything.
Making a copy of something that you would reasonably be expected to have valued enough to pay for deprives the artist of his/her rightful pay. 1 copy does not equal 1 lost payment, but is is total bullshit to suggest that copying never involves a loss of revenue.
If you make a copy without paying for it, you have exactly the same effect on the artist's finances as if you'd never even heard of the work: no effect at all.
Yes, that's true and a cheap piece of rhetorical legerdemain to avoid the real issue. If you HAVE heard of the artist and DO like their work then your copy has the same effect on the artist's finances as if you had just taken the legitimate price out of their wallet.
The reality is that people who download for free and delete the track because they don't like it have not only not hit the artist financially but have at least given them the chance to be heard. As such, the download was a gain for the artist. However, if you have tracks that you listen to regularly that you did not pay for then you're in a completely different boat and are simply insisting that someone works to entertain you for free. Because, like, you're some sort of royalty or something.
The whole issue is fraught with grey areas and is nothing like the Black and White that the RIAA and people like you want to pretend it is.
Sounds like you've bought into the *AA's spin. Pirating may be illegal but it isn't immoral. Making a copy of a number -- which is what it boils down to -- doesn't harm anyone.
Just because the *AA over-simplify things to make their case doesn't mean you can do the same to counter them. Copying a number in this case CAN (not "does", which is the other side's over-simplification) harm someone by depriving them of payment for their work.
Example: Science has long ago experimentally determined that heat moves from the hotter area to the colder. Yet that relationship seems to be reversed in the sun, at least if the currently accepted thermonuclear fusion theory is what makes the sun produce its energy.
Heat is moving from the sun out into the coldness of space, the path it takes is complex and local areas within the sun heat up but that's an illusion caused by the flow of time. In the long term everything will be as you say and the whole sun will be cold. Don't think so short-term.
As I said, I looked it up and didn't think any of the words there were the right translation...
But did you actually look it up in a dictionary? It seems bizarre that you tried a couple of websites rather than something specifically designed to explain words to people who don't know them.
Well, his first three attempts at adapting a fantasy book were crap, so maybe there's a chance this time if he can keep his talentless-hack hands off the script.
"You know what the Hobbit needs, lads?"
"No, Peter, what?"
"More fight scenes. I think we could skip the whole Mirkwood thing and get straight to Dale and have four hours of hack and slash. Whattyasay?"
Maybe a copyright? Under UK law, don't I have a protected ability to retransmit content from one place to another for my personal consumption, the way I do in US law (if not always in US courts)?
Assuming that you're a licence-payer I think you'd have a reasonable case. If not, then you're screwed since you would not have any permission to view the content in the first place, let alone shift it.
The bottom line is that the whole idea of the iPlayer is nonsense. I record anything I want from the BBC onto by hard drive and can burn it on to a DVD to watch in the comfort of my living room or to just store for later viewing. And I can do this because they broadcast it over Freeview. I'm not running down to the market to flog these recordings anymore than I was when I was using VHS for the same thing (who would buy them, everyone else has a TV too?).
Meanwhile Foreigners have access to anything they want via PirateBay. The DRM on the iPlayer is 100% ineffective for the simple reason that the content is already freely available without it; it's just a nuisance for people like me who missed HIGNFY on Saturday and now have to go and find a bittorrent of it as the only alternative is to watch it in my study via a tiny Flash window which my GF won't even consider as a media for video, rightly pointing out that it's a shit way to show anything other than a short cartoon.
So what, after all the money spent on it, has the BBC acheived that they couldn't have got from putting up torrents of DIVX files? Nothing, as far as I can see.
This is so obviously against the constitution that there really should be an oppertunity for it to be struck off before they even waste time voting on it.
Enron's golden years were during the Clinton administration, which pretty much let companies get away with murder when it came to accounting.
Enron's insane/crooked business plan was born under Regan/Thatcher (they got to do a trial run in the UK before rolling it out worldwide); Clinton had plenty of other things to worry about like turning the economy around so that GWB would have something to waste.
Not on your say-so they won't. If you're lucky they may decide to pursue your claim. Or not.
The same can be said of WP. If a WP article has "This is part of the Wiki... project" at the top of it then it has already been grabbed by a self-selecting elite and outsiders will be very lucky to get any changes made. In some cases experts are specifically banned on the grounds that they are experts. That's no way to run anything let alone an encyclopedia. In any case, the ability to get edits to stick is very clearly proportional to how much spare time you have. I've given up on several edit-wars simply because I haven't got time to spend arguing with some ill-informed unemployed eejit in another timezone who is determined to get his/her interpretation of something in no matter how long it takes.
WP is simply a flawed model of how to accumulate a tertiary reference work, coupled by gross hypocracy at the top of the organisation. It's fine as a sort of semi-permanent Usenet, and has all the strengths and weaknesses of Usenet as a place to get facts from too.
If you found an error in a printed encyclopedia and alerted them, it would be fixed in the next edition, in perhaps five years or so.
Or their next DVD edition in 6 months or immediately in their on-line version.
If you found the error in Wikipedia you could fix it yourself there and then and, despite your claim, it would in all likelihood remain fixed, essentially, forever.
Speaking from experience that just isn't the case.
Your claim that it is "impossible to find" accuracy is simply hyperbole.
When you have no way to distinguish something from its surroundings then it's impossible to find, or even know that it's there. When no one is responsible for making sure that it is there, there's no reason to assume that it is.
I myself found multiple errors in the edition of EB I owned, including a spectacularly misidentified orchid genus in a photograph.
And if you alerted them they would fix it and IT WOULD STAY FIXED forever. WP just churns hearsay and opinion in with the corrections in an ever-changing mix. There is no value in such a mess at all. Nothing can be relied on and what accuracy there is is purely accidental and impossible to find.
Many pages that do not change are stable simply because would-be correctors have given up trying to win edit wars with the Wikielite who have friends among (or are) the adminstrators and can win any debate by locking or banning.
It's just got a bureacracy that's developed its own impenetrable code, and makes arbitrary decisions that act to reinforce their own feelings of mutual belonging in their weird little clique, regardless of whether it has any real positive impact on Wikipedia.
And the clear distinction with a cabal is what exactly?
Jimbo Wales and his little entourage are not among them.
Wiould that be Jimbo Wales and his cabal of elite Wikians who run the for-profit branch of the organisation and supress anything that threatens their credibility (and therefore their earnings)?
with all the high powered telescopes, land and spaced based, why cant we point them at the moon and find the rover, flag, space boot prints, etc that was left over from the landing?
Well, they're not quite that clear but the photos have been taken of the sites complete with tracks of the buggies. Have you tried Google?
Slashdot Mirror
But the ability to think does.
That's a load of childish wank, but I know people like you have to parrot your ideologies even when they are totally outmoded, so go ahead and knock yourself out.
TWW
Making a copy of something that you would reasonably be expected to have valued enough to pay for deprives the artist of his/her rightful pay. 1 copy does not equal 1 lost payment, but is is total bullshit to suggest that copying never involves a loss of revenue.
If you make a copy without paying for it, you have exactly the same effect on the artist's finances as if you'd never even heard of the work: no effect at all.
Yes, that's true and a cheap piece of rhetorical legerdemain to avoid the real issue. If you HAVE heard of the artist and DO like their work then your copy has the same effect on the artist's finances as if you had just taken the legitimate price out of their wallet.
The reality is that people who download for free and delete the track because they don't like it have not only not hit the artist financially but have at least given them the chance to be heard. As such, the download was a gain for the artist. However, if you have tracks that you listen to regularly that you did not pay for then you're in a completely different boat and are simply insisting that someone works to entertain you for free. Because, like, you're some sort of royalty or something.
The whole issue is fraught with grey areas and is nothing like the Black and White that the RIAA and people like you want to pretend it is.
TWW
Just because the *AA over-simplify things to make their case doesn't mean you can do the same to counter them. Copying a number in this case CAN (not "does", which is the other side's over-simplification) harm someone by depriving them of payment for their work.
TWW
Heat is moving from the sun out into the coldness of space, the path it takes is complex and local areas within the sun heat up but that's an illusion caused by the flow of time. In the long term everything will be as you say and the whole sun will be cold. Don't think so short-term.
TWW
No: we can detect gravitational effects we were not expecting. Some people have suggested dark matter as an explanation. You're jumping the gun a bit.
TWW
But did you actually look it up in a dictionary? It seems bizarre that you tried a couple of websites rather than something specifically designed to explain words to people who don't know them.
TWW
Well, his first three attempts at adapting a fantasy book were crap, so maybe there's a chance this time if he can keep his talentless-hack hands off the script.
"You know what the Hobbit needs, lads?"
"No, Peter, what?"
"More fight scenes. I think we could skip the whole Mirkwood thing and get straight to Dale and have four hours of hack and slash. Whattyasay?"
"We'd say 'Fuck off, Peter'."
Do you know what the word "dictionary" means?
TWW
Yes, because SKY is such good value for money. Do you mind your taxes going to that shite? I know I do.
Then why are they working there?
Surely if they were any good they would work somewhere where the quality of their work matters?
TWW
TWW
Assuming that you're a licence-payer I think you'd have a reasonable case. If not, then you're screwed since you would not have any permission to view the content in the first place, let alone shift it.
TWW
TWW
Meanwhile Foreigners have access to anything they want via PirateBay. The DRM on the iPlayer is 100% ineffective for the simple reason that the content is already freely available without it; it's just a nuisance for people like me who missed HIGNFY on Saturday and now have to go and find a bittorrent of it as the only alternative is to watch it in my study via a tiny Flash window which my GF won't even consider as a media for video, rightly pointing out that it's a shit way to show anything other than a short cartoon.
So what, after all the money spent on it, has the BBC acheived that they couldn't have got from putting up torrents of DIVX files? Nothing, as far as I can see.
TWW
You are joking, aren't you? "Should" is a request, "Must" is a command. There's a world of difference.
TWW
This is so obviously against the constitution that there really should be an oppertunity for it to be struck off before they even waste time voting on it.
Enron's insane/crooked business plan was born under Regan/Thatcher (they got to do a trial run in the UK before rolling it out worldwide); Clinton had plenty of other things to worry about like turning the economy around so that GWB would have something to waste.
TWW
The same can be said of WP. If a WP article has "This is part of the Wiki... project" at the top of it then it has already been grabbed by a self-selecting elite and outsiders will be very lucky to get any changes made. In some cases experts are specifically banned on the grounds that they are experts. That's no way to run anything let alone an encyclopedia. In any case, the ability to get edits to stick is very clearly proportional to how much spare time you have. I've given up on several edit-wars simply because I haven't got time to spend arguing with some ill-informed unemployed eejit in another timezone who is determined to get his/her interpretation of something in no matter how long it takes.
WP is simply a flawed model of how to accumulate a tertiary reference work, coupled by gross hypocracy at the top of the organisation. It's fine as a sort of semi-permanent Usenet, and has all the strengths and weaknesses of Usenet as a place to get facts from too.
TWW
Or their next DVD edition in 6 months or immediately in their on-line version.
If you found the error in Wikipedia you could fix it yourself there and then and, despite your claim, it would in all likelihood remain fixed, essentially, forever.
Speaking from experience that just isn't the case.
Your claim that it is "impossible to find" accuracy is simply hyperbole.
When you have no way to distinguish something from its surroundings then it's impossible to find, or even know that it's there. When no one is responsible for making sure that it is there, there's no reason to assume that it is.
TWW
And if you alerted them they would fix it and IT WOULD STAY FIXED forever. WP just churns hearsay and opinion in with the corrections in an ever-changing mix. There is no value in such a mess at all. Nothing can be relied on and what accuracy there is is purely accidental and impossible to find.
Many pages that do not change are stable simply because would-be correctors have given up trying to win edit wars with the Wikielite who have friends among (or are) the adminstrators and can win any debate by locking or banning.
TWW
"5. A small body of persons engaged in secret or private machination or intrigue; a junto, clique, côterie, party, faction."
WP administration is just a collection of cabals vieing for the favour of St. Jimbo.
TWW
And the clear distinction with a cabal is what exactly?
Jimbo Wales and his little entourage are not among them.
Wiould that be Jimbo Wales and his cabal of elite Wikians who run the for-profit branch of the organisation and supress anything that threatens their credibility (and therefore their earnings)?
TWW
Well, they're not quite that clear but the photos have been taken of the sites complete with tracks of the buggies. Have you tried Google?
TWW
Nor did you look at the article which has two pictures which make it clear that buildings are in the way of widening the road.
TWW