in order to operate outside the marketplace, all they need is enough public funds to keep them sated. unfortunately, we cut and cut and cut the education budgets and then say "oh they need to eat, they have no choice but to sell out."
this should not be acceptible to us. Universities hooking up with corporations should be a clear sign that our education system is STARVING to DEATH.
congress: keep importing those better-educated Chinese immigrants rather than improve our own schools. thanks.
first: thanks for the intelligent response. (although the article's already at the bottom of the page.. no one's listening anymore..
but i don't really think it's a red herring, i think it's an important distinction that actually gets at the heart of the issue. EVERYONE knows stealing is wrong, it's uninteresting to even bother to debate that. i think the Napster issue -IS- intersting. what constitutes property? how best is society served? Napster users aren't printing their own money. all i ask is that people think about this issue without thinking "stealing" in their minds.
and as for the costs and benefits of promoting vs. discouraging the free distribution of music, well as a musician i'm all for it. i'm much more concerned with holding this debate intelligently, though, rather than actually seeing that it comes out in my favor.
right, but that's not physical. it's POTENTIAL and it's HYPOTHETICAL. we are not TAKING something from the owner when we steal intellectual property, we are really making an EXACT COPY of it, not TAKING something from the owner, in the same way as stealing their shirt or their money or their car. we are not depriving the owner of something physical. what we are depriving them of is POTENTIAL to GAIN money from the product. whether that makes a difference needs to be explored, not ignored.
she is getting upset because we are generating A NEW COPY OF HER SHIRT, not stealing her shirt off her back. she can still wear or sell her shirt as she pleases. i hate the "stealing" analogy because it is essentially not correct. i'm not saying THIS makes Napster ok, i'm saying this analogy is irrelevant.
and i say Napster is an absolute BOON to us. the only musicians who stand to lose from Napster are those upper.0001% that are already way too rich to be considered musicians anymore anyway. then again, i'm voting for Nader in this election only because Jello Biafra bowed out, so don't take MY opinion too seriously.
what's with all these people assuming he's going to blow himself to smithereens? 30 miles straight up. doesn't sound that hard to me. more power to him! i'd like to get out there too someday, and from my point of view, his efforts greatly improve my chances. this whole 90's disillusion with space saddens me greatly. bunch of quitters! i tell ya.
is this the first sign that the Good Guys (tm) may actually win this thing? i mean, the dot com boom led to all these marketers and big corporations fixing our 'net to conform to a solid money-making model.. and so far, they have mostly failed. this is great. soon we may have this thing to ourselves again.. an internet dominated by people who are enthusiastic about whatever it is they're enthusiastic about, rather than companies who think they can make money off of enthusiastic people.
i'm personally a member of multiple virtual communities. the buzzcocks mailing list is now in it's third year with the same core of ~30 active posters and many many other lurkers.. we have all become close friends, occasionally meeting in the R.W... also, a DCPUNK messageboard where i have made and maintained many friendships.. and what are we here on slashdot, if not a virtual community? we've got our good citizens and our vandals, our neighborhood watch and people of power.
it's pretty clear by now (what with all the failed attempts) it's hard to form a community around something purely done for profit. a shoe company is not going to form a "virtual community". but we'll go where the action is. just because companies are having trouble making a quick buck on us doesn't mean we're not here.
they know the purpose of surveys that ask "have you bought more music since you started stealing more music?"
College kids are probably the savviest test-takers in the world. all i'm saying is, ASKING them if they buy more shows nothing, except that they like Napster and free music and want it to continue by telling the pollster what Jon Katz wants to hear.
(having said that, of course, i am still in favor of forcing 90% of all musicians into retirement, making all music totally free, and enacting more laws to prevent musicians from reaping monetary rewards for their music.. that oughta get rid of the backstreet boys, britney spears, and most of the rest of the crap.. i think Jello Biafra, Billy Bragg, and I would still be out there though)
Slashdot Mirror
in order to operate outside the marketplace, all they need is enough public funds to keep them sated. unfortunately, we cut and cut and cut the education budgets and then say "oh they need to eat, they have no choice but to sell out." this should not be acceptible to us. Universities hooking up with corporations should be a clear sign that our education system is STARVING to DEATH. congress: keep importing those better-educated Chinese immigrants rather than improve our own schools. thanks.
Internet killed the video star,
but i don't really think it's a red herring, i think it's an important distinction that actually gets at the heart of the issue. EVERYONE knows stealing is wrong, it's uninteresting to even bother to debate that. i think the Napster issue -IS- intersting. what constitutes property? how best is society served? Napster users aren't printing their own money. all i ask is that people think about this issue without thinking "stealing" in their minds.
and as for the costs and benefits of promoting vs. discouraging the free distribution of music, well as a musician i'm all for it. i'm much more concerned with holding this debate intelligently, though, rather than actually seeing that it comes out in my favor.
right, but that's not physical. it's POTENTIAL and it's HYPOTHETICAL. we are not TAKING something from the owner when we steal intellectual property, we are really making an EXACT COPY of it, not TAKING something from the owner, in the same way as stealing their shirt or their money or their car. we are not depriving the owner of something physical. what we are depriving them of is POTENTIAL to GAIN money from the product. whether that makes a difference needs to be explored, not ignored.
she is getting upset because we are generating A NEW COPY OF HER SHIRT, not stealing her shirt off her back. she can still wear or sell her shirt as she pleases. i hate the "stealing" analogy because it is essentially not correct. i'm not saying THIS makes Napster ok, i'm saying this analogy is irrelevant.
and i say Napster is an absolute BOON to us. the only musicians who stand to lose from Napster are those upper .0001% that are already way too rich to be considered musicians anymore anyway. then again, i'm voting for Nader in this election only because Jello Biafra bowed out, so don't take MY opinion too seriously.
MAGNETO MAGENTO MAGNETO MAGENTO anyone else notice this? or get totally annoyed by it?
what's with all these people assuming he's going to blow himself to smithereens? 30 miles straight up. doesn't sound that hard to me. more power to him! i'd like to get out there too someday, and from my point of view, his efforts greatly improve my chances. this whole 90's disillusion with space saddens me greatly. bunch of quitters! i tell ya.
you go away.
well, whatever.
it's pretty clear by now (what with all the failed attempts) it's hard to form a community around something purely done for profit. a shoe company is not going to form a "virtual community". but we'll go where the action is. just because companies are having trouble making a quick buck on us doesn't mean we're not here.
poo
College kids are probably the savviest test-takers in the world. all i'm saying is, ASKING them if they buy more shows nothing, except that they like Napster and free music and want it to continue by telling the pollster what Jon Katz wants to hear.
(having said that, of course, i am still in favor of forcing 90% of all musicians into retirement, making all music totally free, and enacting more laws to prevent musicians from reaping monetary rewards for their music .. that oughta get rid of the backstreet boys, britney spears, and most of the rest of the crap .. i think Jello Biafra, Billy Bragg, and I would still be out there though)