S.S. pisses me off. Correct me if Im wrong, but how does the concept of Social Security differ from one of the stupid pyramid schemes that people get caught up in and scammed with? Because the government forces you into it, end of story. If it weren't a government program it would be illegal.
When S.S started, people began taking money from it right away without ever paying in at all. Great for them, bad for the system. Now with
the wonders of modern medicine, the life expectancy of the average person has gone up. Great for people, bad for S.S, because people start taking more and more from it. Answers could be increasing the tax to fund it, increasing the age at which people are eligible to get it so
that its closer to the life expectancy. I think its stupid that I hear everyone talking about it as though they were supposed to rely on S.S.
for retirement. It was never meant to be relied on, it was meant to help out. What was wrong with keeping your own damn money, planning for your own retirement, and if you didnt, well then you were SOL and screw you for not thinking ahead?
"The seniors, the seniors, won't somebody PLEASE think of the seniors!"
Real clever of the generation that created it to say, oh yeah this will work, we didnt save ourselves, so lets have our kids pay for us. I dont want my kids to have to pay for me. Same as I shouldnt have to pay for my parents, and they shouldnt have had to pay for their parents, and so
on. Leave me out the system and my kids wouldnt have to pay for me. In fact, Id be able to probably pay everything for them, because I know I
can handle my money better than some beauracrat. Great for the government so they can take your money and shift it around to whatever they want, talking about surpluses they get with it. The fact is though, the S.S doesnt have a surplus, because there is no way to save it from year to year. Its actually in debt, because money from the supposed 'surplus' was redirected to other areas. Well where is that money now going to come back from?
Its just such a half assed system, but of course Seniors have such a strong voting block and no one bothers to look at the actual numbers involved. S.S is of course great for them since their milking it for all its worth right now. S.S is the real 'fuzzy math' in politics. Thats the one silver lining I've seen in the otherwise dark cloud of possibilities should Bush get into the office. I'd love to be able to invest my own money. If it gets screwed, well I'm not figuring Ill get much out the system by the time Im ready to retire anyway, so its not like Ill feel I lost much.
We should have never set up a system where people feel entitled to things in the first place. It breeds laziness, same as welfare, same as communism did. Welfare sounds great if people only use it to get back on their feet in a pinch, it shouldnt become a way of life. Sure we
need a safety net to help the unfortunate, shit does happen sometimes, but no one should feel entitled to it. Communism sounds great on paper,
in practice it failed to take into account human laziness when they wont benefit from working harder.
e-mail or email: the hyphen is just extra, and doesn't really add any meaning to the word now. So for the sake of efficiency, there is no reason to use the hyphen, grammar be damned...
Atheists NEED religious rights because as you said it is a belief, that it is a belief in NO god is irrelevant. Its the protection of their rights to continue believing their is no god, and to act and speak those beliefs, that is important. It is equally important for any other religion, major and minor, to have those rights maintained.
Thoughts on Napster/RIAA/Artists/Copyright Law
on
Napster Back in Court
·
· Score: 1
It seems to me that so many people are trying to take this issue to its extremes, when the solution is going to be in compromise. If one side is too stubborn or greedy, they bring the fight on themselves.
So far as paying for music is concerned, I will pay for music I like. Humanity is better off when information is freely available, but at the same time I don't want to quantity or quality of the music to lapse, an enevitability if artists can not make money any longer.
But this exact concern is what the true spirit of copyright law was about. It was about giving the authors of creative work control of their work for a limited time so that the creative work would keep getting done. But only for a limited time because eventually we want that work distributed and disseminated to the public. Copyright law was not their to make people money, it is there in essence to promote science and the arts.
The RIAA does an extreme disservice to this argument because they couldn't care less about the lofty goals of the copyright law, they are greedy and know it will make them money. But at the same time, no matter what their alterior motives are, they are on the side that will maintain some level of control for the artists over their intellectual property.
Napster comes in on the side of making the information available to the public. This also is an important step in promoting the arts and sciences. But most of the arguments I hear from this side come down to people being greedy, and wanting what is best for them personally without a concern in the world for what is best for everyone.
The system needs to change. The RIAA has glutted itself on the old system, and its fearful of a system where its no longer needed. But if all information everywhere is just free, the people that make their money creating that information will probably not continue to do so. Then we can freely distribute information that is no longer being created, which certainly isn't the desired result.
A system where everyone just does what they do for the good of everyone was tried, it didn't work, it was called communism. People are lazy, and greedy, and competetive. That's why the economic system we have works the way it does. People want as much as they can get, at least as much if not more than anyone else (because if someone else can get it, it's *possible* for you to get it too) for as little work as possible. People aren't looking out for what's going to be best for all of us, and I don't see that ever changing. It's been a fantasized ideal for most of human history, and yet nothing has changed. Its the reason we need laws at all.
It's wonderful to talk about what could be with this. I'd love to pay the artists directly for their work, and cut out the RIAA. But if that's going to happen the artists need to work to make that happen as well. If the artists stay with the RIAA, because they don't want to worry about promoting their music instead of just creating it, then unfortunately you'll be paying a middle man of some sort. Ultimately, its going to take the artists, the fans, the law, technology, promoters, and probably a slew of others I'm not thinking of right now to find the acceptable solution to this problem.
That solution I think will have the original spirit of copyright law at its heart, which is to promote science and the arts. One that makes it possible for those creating the information and art to continue to do so, as well as making it available to the public.
Is subscription service the answer? Not with the current Napster model, at least I don't see it. I'd go for subscription to a service that provides garunteed access to high quality and quantity of music. With something like Napster, they can't garuntee what you'll find, you can't really be sure of what you'll be able to get. How many crappy copies of music have you ever found? Incomplete tracks, crappy playbacks, corrupt files - I'd pay Napster a service fee to sift these things out and save me time, I'd pay the musicians for their intellectual property if I get quality products in return. I would not pay Napster for the service they currently provide.
What's more is that the artists still have no say over what gets put on there or not. The artists should be able to maintain control over what they share, and what they don't. Regardless of whether they are ok with their music being distributed freely or not, they never consented to it being distributed like that in the first place. Just for an example, you write a love song to your spouse or SO, its personal meant for the two of you and no one else, and yet under the current system, if anyone got their hands on it, it could end up on Napster and swapped around with no one concerned you didn't want it up there. Say Napster starts swapping digital books, and someone swipes your diary and puts it up online to be traded, how would you feel about that? It's an issue about respect for the intent of the creators, and the current Napster model doesnt pay any, let alone cash.
"And sometimes the singles are nothing like the rest of the CD, Everlast's "White Ford Sings the Blues" comes to mind. "Ends" and "What it's like" are really cool blues songs, but the rest of the CD is rap. Too bad the rock station that I heard them on didn't mention that."
Actually, '#8 Hot to Death', and '#12 Today (Watch Me Shine-Featuring Bronx Style Bob)' were pretty decent too. But by an large, the rest of the album wasn't quite what I was hoping for either.
Slashdot Mirror
When S.S started, people began taking money from it right away without ever paying in at all. Great for them, bad for the system. Now with the wonders of modern medicine, the life expectancy of the average person has gone up. Great for people, bad for S.S, because people start taking more and more from it. Answers could be increasing the tax to fund it, increasing the age at which people are eligible to get it so that its closer to the life expectancy. I think its stupid that I hear everyone talking about it as though they were supposed to rely on S.S. for retirement. It was never meant to be relied on, it was meant to help out. What was wrong with keeping your own damn money, planning for your own retirement, and if you didnt, well then you were SOL and screw you for not thinking ahead?
"The seniors, the seniors, won't somebody PLEASE think of the seniors!"
Real clever of the generation that created it to say, oh yeah this will work, we didnt save ourselves, so lets have our kids pay for us. I dont want my kids to have to pay for me. Same as I shouldnt have to pay for my parents, and they shouldnt have had to pay for their parents, and so on. Leave me out the system and my kids wouldnt have to pay for me. In fact, Id be able to probably pay everything for them, because I know I can handle my money better than some beauracrat. Great for the government so they can take your money and shift it around to whatever they want, talking about surpluses they get with it. The fact is though, the S.S doesnt have a surplus, because there is no way to save it from year to year. Its actually in debt, because money from the supposed 'surplus' was redirected to other areas. Well where is that money now going to come back from?
Its just such a half assed system, but of course Seniors have such a strong voting block and no one bothers to look at the actual numbers involved. S.S is of course great for them since their milking it for all its worth right now. S.S is the real 'fuzzy math' in politics. Thats the one silver lining I've seen in the otherwise dark cloud of possibilities should Bush get into the office. I'd love to be able to invest my own money. If it gets screwed, well I'm not figuring Ill get much out the system by the time Im ready to retire anyway, so its not like Ill feel I lost much.
We should have never set up a system where people feel entitled to things in the first place. It breeds laziness, same as welfare, same as communism did. Welfare sounds great if people only use it to get back on their feet in a pinch, it shouldnt become a way of life. Sure we need a safety net to help the unfortunate, shit does happen sometimes, but no one should feel entitled to it. Communism sounds great on paper, in practice it failed to take into account human laziness when they wont benefit from working harder.
As always, feel free to disagree...
e-mail or email: the hyphen is just extra, and doesn't really add any meaning to the word now. So for the sake of efficiency, there is no reason to use the hyphen, grammar be damned...
Atheists NEED religious rights because as you said it is a belief, that it is a belief in NO god is irrelevant. Its the protection of their rights to continue believing their is no god, and to act and speak those beliefs, that is important. It is equally important for any other religion, major and minor, to have those rights maintained.
So far as paying for music is concerned, I will pay for music I like. Humanity is better off when information is freely available, but at the same time I don't want to quantity or quality of the music to lapse, an enevitability if artists can not make money any longer.
But this exact concern is what the true spirit of copyright law was about. It was about giving the authors of creative work control of their work for a limited time so that the creative work would keep getting done. But only for a limited time because eventually we want that work distributed and disseminated to the public. Copyright law was not their to make people money, it is there in essence to promote science and the arts.
The RIAA does an extreme disservice to this argument because they couldn't care less about the lofty goals of the copyright law, they are greedy and know it will make them money. But at the same time, no matter what their alterior motives are, they are on the side that will maintain some level of control for the artists over their intellectual property.
Napster comes in on the side of making the information available to the public. This also is an important step in promoting the arts and sciences. But most of the arguments I hear from this side come down to people being greedy, and wanting what is best for them personally without a concern in the world for what is best for everyone.
The system needs to change. The RIAA has glutted itself on the old system, and its fearful of a system where its no longer needed. But if all information everywhere is just free, the people that make their money creating that information will probably not continue to do so. Then we can freely distribute information that is no longer being created, which certainly isn't the desired result.
A system where everyone just does what they do for the good of everyone was tried, it didn't work, it was called communism. People are lazy, and greedy, and competetive. That's why the economic system we have works the way it does. People want as much as they can get, at least as much if not more than anyone else (because if someone else can get it, it's *possible* for you to get it too) for as little work as possible. People aren't looking out for what's going to be best for all of us, and I don't see that ever changing. It's been a fantasized ideal for most of human history, and yet nothing has changed. Its the reason we need laws at all.
It's wonderful to talk about what could be with this. I'd love to pay the artists directly for their work, and cut out the RIAA. But if that's going to happen the artists need to work to make that happen as well. If the artists stay with the RIAA, because they don't want to worry about promoting their music instead of just creating it, then unfortunately you'll be paying a middle man of some sort. Ultimately, its going to take the artists, the fans, the law, technology, promoters, and probably a slew of others I'm not thinking of right now to find the acceptable solution to this problem.
That solution I think will have the original spirit of copyright law at its heart, which is to promote science and the arts. One that makes it possible for those creating the information and art to continue to do so, as well as making it available to the public.
Is subscription service the answer? Not with the current Napster model, at least I don't see it. I'd go for subscription to a service that provides garunteed access to high quality and quantity of music. With something like Napster, they can't garuntee what you'll find, you can't really be sure of what you'll be able to get. How many crappy copies of music have you ever found? Incomplete tracks, crappy playbacks, corrupt files - I'd pay Napster a service fee to sift these things out and save me time, I'd pay the musicians for their intellectual property if I get quality products in return. I would not pay Napster for the service they currently provide.
What's more is that the artists still have no say over what gets put on there or not. The artists should be able to maintain control over what they share, and what they don't. Regardless of whether they are ok with their music being distributed freely or not, they never consented to it being distributed like that in the first place. Just for an example, you write a love song to your spouse or SO, its personal meant for the two of you and no one else, and yet under the current system, if anyone got their hands on it, it could end up on Napster and swapped around with no one concerned you didn't want it up there. Say Napster starts swapping digital books, and someone swipes your diary and puts it up online to be traded, how would you feel about that? It's an issue about respect for the intent of the creators, and the current Napster model doesnt pay any, let alone cash.
Actually, '#8 Hot to Death', and '#12 Today (Watch Me Shine-Featuring Bronx Style Bob)' were pretty decent too. But by an large, the rest of the album wasn't quite what I was hoping for either.
-Nez