I didnt' say they have to - what i said is if they're allready in a situation where they're poverty-stricken, you're not doing them an injustic by offering (not forcing) an alternative.
Sure, it's possible for a better job to be offered. And anyone who takes the crummy job in favor of the great job is making a bad choice. I'm just saying that when the base situation is poverty, offering the poverty-stricken another solution is a good thing. How good of a thing that is depends on how good the job is. And so long as all parties involved enter into the situation knowingly, it's BS to say they're coerced. The employee is free to decline the crummy job and keep seekign out something better, which may or may not come along. it's the employee's choice.
So it's better not to have any options, and be FORCED to starve then it is to choose between starving and entering into a shitty arrangement that at least lets you eat?
If the person's in a dire situation - starving, absolute poverty, etc - then offering a new choice (even a crummy one) is a GOOD thing. It may not be a great thing, but it's a good thing. Offering fair wage for reasonable work is a BETTER thing.
Hey, thanks for making all sorts of assumptions about my line of reasoning and motivations - love when that happens.
Actually, freedom matters a whole lot more to me than money. I'd like to see people have the options to take whatever jobs best suit their abilities and opporunities. In some cases that's well-paid executive. In some cases that's poorly paid gas station attendant. In some cases thats well-paid high-profile prostitute. In other's, it's a poorly paid street hooker.
I don't want to take any choices away from people on either side of the contract. So long as both the employer and the employee enter into their arrangement knowingly and honestly, who the hell are you or i or anyone else to tell them what they can or can't do. All employed work is subjugation of one sort or another - its up to the employee to decide whether its worth the payment in return.
And no, capatalists don't think slavery is ok - not unless they can't distinguish between humans and properties. A capatalist can't buy and sell that which isn't considered to be property. While the US has its own deplorable history with failing to make that distinction, it's a point we moved past long ago. Slavery can exist under any economic system - but not under any just system.
As far as cases wgere government initiates mass propoganda and disinformation - well that's a bad thing regardless of the economic system. Historically we've seen it happen in communist, capatalist, socialist and all sorts of other societies. IF the governmetn engages in behavoir like that, the government is going to introduce corruption into the system - regardless of what type of system it is.
It's not explotation if someone chooses, with all the information presented in front of him/her, to enter into the situation without coersion.
Let's pretend for a moment when you say "girl" you mean "woman" and by that you mean "person old enough to enter into contractual agreements, and to consent to sex."
what exactly would be wrong with that, then? You'd make her an offer - XX amount of money for XX amount of service. If the offer doesn't seem fair to her, she'll decline.
You could argue the poverty she lives in makes XX too appealing an offer for her to reasonably approve, even if noone in a developed area would agree to the same. But what's wrong with giving this woman the CHOICE? Isn't it better to give a person a choice between the absolute shit life of complete poverty and the nearly absolute shit life of menial pay for hard work?
Now I wasn't clear from the summary, but are you saying there's some sort of difficulty with getting the rights from the estate? Or that he'll wait until after King Kong? I think you need to repeat it maybe 6-7 more times, just to be sure.
Those are the reasons I prefer Itunes AACs to WMAs, but you still wind up with vendor lock-in problems.
For instance - lets say I don't have a pressing need to burn my AACs to CD format, I figure I can do it later. Only Apple goes out of business (isn't that always supposed to be right around the corner?), and my copy of Itunes no longer has a way to verify its authorized to use my purchased AACs. At this point, I'm screwed.
Also, even though I CAN burn a CD, the actual purchase is for a music file. I want to know that I will always be free to buy a player capable of making use of that file - and not just from one company that could go out of business or change its services at any time. I want to know any other company or dork with a Radio Shack nearby can get me a player in the distant future.
More to the point, even though Apple's AACs aren't bad, it still locks my into using Itunes/IPODs and only Itunes (or maybe, eventually, some licensed players). To use anything else, I have to burn and rip - effectively transcoding and losing quality.
So lets stay I stick with itunes. Sure, that's great, except how am I supposed to play these files I bought from Napster, and these others I bought from MusicMatch? Oh, there's dedicated players for that. So now I need to have seperate libraries maintained in Itunes and MusicMatch, and maybe napster's player too. In the cases where the DRM lets me burn a CD, I can transcode, but that's not allways an option and when it is, its far from ideal.
When I buy a CD from Best Buy, I don't have to use the special Best Buy player, which doesn't play all the same music as my FYE player or my Virgin Megastores player. I don't want to jump through hoops and lose quality to put all my music in one place, or in one format.
The media muckety-mucks need to get together on a standard that can be used on any player (not suggesting backward compatability, but a standard would catch on quickly) and survive longer than their business models. Until then, I'm not buying.
With all these services cropping up, I'm beginning to wonder about the limits of the interoperability (and longevity) of the formats used for the files I buy (rent?).
I can go out to any CD store, and I can bring my CD home and listen to it in any CD player from any company. This will remain true long after CD is supplanted by the Next Big Thing (TM). It's not difficult to find a record player, although they're not as omnipresent as they once were. It takes a little more work, but I can find someone to sell me an 8-track player or a reel-to-reel, too. Worst case, I can build one with the right components and little know-how (that I don't happen to have).
When I buy a song from Itunes, its in a proprietary format I can only read with apple's products. That's fine for now (they're great products), but what am I going to do 10 years down the line if Apple gets out of the music business. The selection is a little more flexible on the WMA-based music side, as Microsoft is licensing the format and its DRM to anyone and everyone, but ultimately, you can run into a lesser version of the same problem.
I don't want to have to install 10 different proprietary music players and buy 10 different portable devices just to shop from 10 different online stores. And I don't want my purchases to become useless just because a company goes out of business or drops its music player/sales line - or because I switch operating systems or even upgrade to a new OS revision that isn't supported.
For now, I'll stick with ripping my own CDs to unprotected MP3s (sorry OGG, I have a nomad). I'll reconsider once (if) everyone settles on a defacto standard for a format that's not too restrictive to but useful.
No. Someone hwho is a great composer should make money in whatever way he/she can, just without the artificial protection of bad IP laws.
One suggestion: Compose, on contract, for better performers. They can pay you for songs you'll write (they already know based on your rep that you're good) and that they'll debut. You and they enter into an agreement not to expose the song to the public until that time. If you and/or the performer are any good, peope will flock to see/hear your new work. Then you go to MORE work for MORE money, writing more songs for the same or other artists to debut. Rinse, later, repeat. You shouldn't get paid repeatedly for work you did once anyway - that's just counter-intuitive.
I'm sure there are other service-oriented models for composers out there. But even if there aren't the simple fact that what they do might not be profitable doesn't mean we should make laws to artificially send profit their way. There are plenty of worthwhile things in this world that aren't profitable. If you can find a way to make $$, good for you. If not, too bad, but thanks for contributing to society anyway.
But you're still free to say the Patriot Act blows, and to vote for people willing to overturn it or its most dangerous provisions - and there are quite a few legislators out there speaking up against the act.
In addition, we have courts that have overturned provisions of the patriot act, and states that have refused to enforce parts of it.
Our system isn't perfect, and it requires consistent vigalance on the part of hte governed, but at least the avenues for change are built into its core.
encode on the fly to WHAT? you still want to be able to pic a codec that produces good results when you use it to encode on the fly to the smaller decive.
It's fine to say store it on your harddrive with large-bitrate-mp3/wma/ogg/whatever, then convert it when you need to... but you still need to pick a codec for that task.
If it was clearly not the intent of the user to install the software, and the user had no opportunity in standard use of the machine to see what was happened, probably not. You get into the same territory you do with any other crack is performed on a machine.
Now if the user goes to a web page and is prompted with a very honest but dry and complicated "do you want to install this software message" he/she simply can't be bothered to read, and clicks through, the onus is still on the user.
If you install software that show's you a competitors ads every time to go to Uhaul.com, then you've CHOSEN (however unwisely or naively) to make your computer display those ads. Just like if you've installed a popup blocker, you've chosen to have the popups blanked out or eliminated. And no judge has a right to tell you that you can't instruct your comptuer to do either of those things.
Slashdot Mirror
I would, but it just wasn't as good after Joel left.
I didnt' say they have to - what i said is if they're allready in a situation where they're poverty-stricken, you're not doing them an injustic by offering (not forcing) an alternative.
Sure, it's possible for a better job to be offered. And anyone who takes the crummy job in favor of the great job is making a bad choice. I'm just saying that when the base situation is poverty, offering the poverty-stricken another solution is a good thing. How good of a thing that is depends on how good the job is. And so long as all parties involved enter into the situation knowingly, it's BS to say they're coerced. The employee is free to decline the crummy job and keep seekign out something better, which may or may not come along. it's the employee's choice.
So it's better not to have any options, and be FORCED to starve then it is to choose between starving and entering into a shitty arrangement that at least lets you eat?
If the person's in a dire situation - starving, absolute poverty, etc - then offering a new choice (even a crummy one) is a GOOD thing. It may not be a great thing, but it's a good thing. Offering fair wage for reasonable work is a BETTER thing.
Hey, thanks for making all sorts of assumptions about my line of reasoning and motivations - love when that happens.
Actually, freedom matters a whole lot more to me than money. I'd like to see people have the options to take whatever jobs best suit their abilities and opporunities. In some cases that's well-paid executive. In some cases that's poorly paid gas station attendant. In some cases thats well-paid high-profile prostitute. In other's, it's a poorly paid street hooker.
I don't want to take any choices away from people on either side of the contract. So long as both the employer and the employee enter into their arrangement knowingly and honestly, who the hell are you or i or anyone else to tell them what they can or can't do. All employed work is subjugation of one sort or another - its up to the employee to decide whether its worth the payment in return.
And no, capatalists don't think slavery is ok - not unless they can't distinguish between humans and properties. A capatalist can't buy and sell that which isn't considered to be property. While the US has its own deplorable history with failing to make that distinction, it's a point we moved past long ago. Slavery can exist under any economic system - but not under any just system.
As far as cases wgere government initiates mass propoganda and disinformation - well that's a bad thing regardless of the economic system. Historically we've seen it happen in communist, capatalist, socialist and all sorts of other societies. IF the governmetn engages in behavoir like that, the government is going to introduce corruption into the system - regardless of what type of system it is.
It's not explotation if someone chooses, with all the information presented in front of him/her, to enter into the situation without coersion.
Let's pretend for a moment when you say "girl" you mean "woman" and by that you mean "person old enough to enter into contractual agreements, and to consent to sex."
what exactly would be wrong with that, then? You'd make her an offer - XX amount of money for XX amount of service. If the offer doesn't seem fair to her, she'll decline.
You could argue the poverty she lives in makes XX too appealing an offer for her to reasonably approve, even if noone in a developed area would agree to the same. But what's wrong with giving this woman the CHOICE? Isn't it better to give a person a choice between the absolute shit life of complete poverty and the nearly absolute shit life of menial pay for hard work?
Next they're working on a genetic variation of the stomach flu that cures an ailing sense of humor.
... I won't get one until it supports OGG Vorbis.
But Linus is so much cuuuuuuter!
Now I wasn't clear from the summary, but are you saying there's some sort of difficulty with getting the rights from the estate? Or that he'll wait until after King Kong? I think you need to repeat it maybe 6-7 more times, just to be sure.
Those are the reasons I prefer Itunes AACs to WMAs, but you still wind up with vendor lock-in problems.
For instance - lets say I don't have a pressing need to burn my AACs to CD format, I figure I can do it later. Only Apple goes out of business (isn't that always supposed to be right around the corner?), and my copy of Itunes no longer has a way to verify its authorized to use my purchased AACs. At this point, I'm screwed.
Also, even though I CAN burn a CD, the actual purchase is for a music file. I want to know that I will always be free to buy a player capable of making use of that file - and not just from one company that could go out of business or change its services at any time. I want to know any other company or dork with a Radio Shack nearby can get me a player in the distant future.
More to the point, even though Apple's AACs aren't bad, it still locks my into using Itunes/IPODs and only Itunes (or maybe, eventually, some licensed players). To use anything else, I have to burn and rip - effectively transcoding and losing quality.
So lets stay I stick with itunes. Sure, that's great, except how am I supposed to play these files I bought from Napster, and these others I bought from MusicMatch? Oh, there's dedicated players for that. So now I need to have seperate libraries maintained in Itunes and MusicMatch, and maybe napster's player too. In the cases where the DRM lets me burn a CD, I can transcode, but that's not allways an option and when it is, its far from ideal.
When I buy a CD from Best Buy, I don't have to use the special Best Buy player, which doesn't play all the same music as my FYE player or my Virgin Megastores player. I don't want to jump through hoops and lose quality to put all my music in one place, or in one format.
The media muckety-mucks need to get together on a standard that can be used on any player (not suggesting backward compatability, but a standard would catch on quickly) and survive longer than their business models. Until then, I'm not buying.
With all these services cropping up, I'm beginning to wonder about the limits of the interoperability (and longevity) of the formats used for the files I buy (rent?).
I can go out to any CD store, and I can bring my CD home and listen to it in any CD player from any company. This will remain true long after CD is supplanted by the Next Big Thing (TM). It's not difficult to find a record player, although they're not as omnipresent as they once were. It takes a little more work, but I can find someone to sell me an 8-track player or a reel-to-reel, too. Worst case, I can build one with the right components and little know-how (that I don't happen to have).
When I buy a song from Itunes, its in a proprietary format I can only read with apple's products. That's fine for now (they're great products), but what am I going to do 10 years down the line if Apple gets out of the music business. The selection is a little more flexible on the WMA-based music side, as Microsoft is licensing the format and its DRM to anyone and everyone, but ultimately, you can run into a lesser version of the same problem.
I don't want to have to install 10 different proprietary music players and buy 10 different portable devices just to shop from 10 different online stores. And I don't want my purchases to become useless just because a company goes out of business or drops its music player/sales line - or because I switch operating systems or even upgrade to a new OS revision that isn't supported.
For now, I'll stick with ripping my own CDs to unprotected MP3s (sorry OGG, I have a nomad). I'll reconsider once (if) everyone settles on a defacto standard for a format that's not too restrictive to but useful.
I hate when I can't get head
Don't question it. Just enjoy it.
yeah, heavin forbis.
and that good faith is aparently justified ...
Nice choices.
"Press OK to continue loading the content of this page."
The only choice is OK! there's no cancel, no, or fuck yourself ms!
No. Someone hwho is a great composer should make money in whatever way he/she can, just without the artificial protection of bad IP laws.
One suggestion:
Compose, on contract, for better performers. They can pay you for songs you'll write (they already know based on your rep that you're good) and that they'll debut. You and they enter into an agreement not to expose the song to the public until that time. If you and/or the performer are any good, peope will flock to see/hear your new work. Then you go to MORE work for MORE money, writing more songs for the same or other artists to debut. Rinse, later, repeat. You shouldn't get paid repeatedly for work you did once anyway - that's just counter-intuitive.
I'm sure there are other service-oriented models for composers out there. But even if there aren't the simple fact that what they do might not be profitable doesn't mean we should make laws to artificially send profit their way. There are plenty of worthwhile things in this world that aren't profitable. If you can find a way to make $$, good for you. If not, too bad, but thanks for contributing to society anyway.
That's easy. Writing the converter to parse it is the tough part.
But it does make it more fun.
But you're still free to say the Patriot Act blows, and to vote for people willing to overturn it or its most dangerous provisions - and there are quite a few legislators out there speaking up against the act.
In addition, we have courts that have overturned provisions of the patriot act, and states that have refused to enforce parts of it.
Our system isn't perfect, and it requires consistent vigalance on the part of hte governed, but at least the avenues for change are built into its core.
encode on the fly to WHAT? you still want to be able to pic a codec that produces good results when you use it to encode on the fly to the smaller decive.
... but you still need to pick a codec for that task.
It's fine to say store it on your harddrive with large-bitrate-mp3/wma/ogg/whatever, then convert it when you need to
No no no, Murphy's law is the one that says when you bring the Nazis into the discussion, you lose - you stupid Nazi.
Oh crap, I did it!
If it was clearly not the intent of the user to install the software, and the user had no opportunity in standard use of the machine to see what was happened, probably not. You get into the same territory you do with any other crack is performed on a machine.
Now if the user goes to a web page and is prompted with a very honest but dry and complicated "do you want to install this software message" he/she simply can't be bothered to read, and clicks through, the onus is still on the user.
If you install software that show's you a competitors ads every time to go to Uhaul.com, then you've CHOSEN (however unwisely or naively) to make your computer display those ads. Just like if you've installed a popup blocker, you've chosen to have the popups blanked out or eliminated. And no judge has a right to tell you that you can't instruct your comptuer to do either of those things.