"playing video games or watching a movie will not cause a formerly peace-loving individual to go on a shooting spree"
It's doubtful that just playing some games or watching some movies will cause someone to wig out, I can't help but wonder what the total effect from years of playing realistically violent games is.
Also, how does it influence the totality of our culture? I believe in a feedback-type system. We play violent games. We watch violent movies. We have violent TV shows. We talk about violence, think about violence. After a while, this degree of violence is passe, and no longer shocking to the masses. So the envelope is "pushed", and the violence in movie & TV increases. Video games follow suit, as the gamers now want more violence; increase in computer power allows the violence to be more realistic. Repeat cycle.
Where do we end up? Where does a child starting here, now, end up in 20 years with a steady diet of murders, deaths, and slayings?
Most of us separate it from reality fairly easily. But can everyone? Can a small child? Or even a young teenager?
As for censorship - there is none. Companies can still make violent games. Adults can still buy games. Kids can play games if their parents buy it for them. Kids just can't buy them directly. This is restrictive, the way movie ratings are, but it certainly isn't censorship.
I like violent games here and there. I'm also 29, understand the impact of real physical suffering, and I don't confuse pretend for real. I don't believe that's the case for the typical 10 yr. old. Parents are responsible for their children, but they can't monitor their behavior 24/7. So why not make parenting a little easier by having mandatory carding on high-violence games, just as we do with beer, movies, and magazines? -----
D. Fischer
A few thoughts:
1) Funding and promotion for the entire media industry (entertainment, news, Slashdot, etc.) is largely predicated on the belief that people's behaviors can be influenced by the media; hence, commercials, ads, celebrity endorsements.
2) Nearly everyone in the media who earns money from the sale of violent, salacious, or obscene material holds that their work does not affect people's behavior. Interestingly, that work is usually funded & promoted in part by commercials.
=> The media is hypocritical.
Of course we are influenced by what we mentally "consume". Our entire culture is based upon information transfer. We read newspapers, books, magazines to gain info and thus have our behavior influenced and modified. We send our kids to school to hear teachers teach, so they gain knowledge & wisdom, and have their behavior change with that. Most of this is self-caused, and often purposeful. But not all. Young kids watch "Power Rangers" and then karate-kick friends and family in emulation. Teens watch hit comedies, and then talk about them, and introduce new slang into their language ("Not that there's anything wrong with that", "D'oh!", etc.)
To hold that the content of movies, books, music, games, etc. has no effect on anyone is naive, to say the least.
It seems a useful question to ask is whether we should have any restrictions on who can access what content, or none at all. (e.g. > 17 for "R" movies, "Playboy" can't be purchased by minors, need parents' permission to call the TV Psychics).
Perhaps first, we should ask not whether we are influenced by intellectual intake, but to what degree. -----
D. Fischer
"Document your idea and mail a few coppies to yourself."
Are the included police (coppies) there to protect your paperwork? How do they fit in the envelope? And doesn't the USPS forbid the mailing of human bodies?
I couldn't resist; that was just too good of a misspelling of "copies":)
Seriously, that's a good idea, which I'ver heard a few times over the years. I plan on doing that to document the origins of my domain name, in case of future corporate antagonism. -----
D. Fischer
One problem of just patenting/not-enforcing is that acquring a patent is a fairly expensive process. I believe it is on the order of $5k - $15k; partly because you need patent lawyers properly obfuscate your invention description:)
I like the idea of reducing the cost of the patent process, and implementing a very low cost anti-patent database (apdb).
Also, I understood them as suggesting the apdb be moderated by volunteers. The danger is that these new examiners could bring their own professional agendas into the process, seeking to hinder others to benefit their own company. Proper precautions would need to be worked out.
"Consider, for example, how willingly the same programmers usually sign over all rights to a large corporation for a salary"
RMS doesn't allow for the idea that "they made it, they own it" is then integrated with living and becomes "I owned it, but have effectively sold it to my company for my salary (so I can eat)".
As for the emotional strawman argument, I imagine great artists have strong emotional attachments to their finest works. That doesn't stop them from selling them to support themselves. -----
D. Fischer
"You agree to the terms and conditions of this license by performing ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) using the:CRQ software."
I wonder when we'll see THIS EULA posted outside storefronts:
You agree to the terms and conditions of this license by performing ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) entering this store.
Required Uses and Restrictions By entering this store, you agree to purchase a minimum of $1000 US in merchandise in services. You also agree to accept all recommended Extended Warranty Contracts.
Limitation of Liability (1) If this store collapse, maiming or killing you, this store is not responsible. If poorly placed objects fall from shelves, striking your body, this store is not responsible.
(2) If the employees taunt, ridicule, or insult you, this store is not held responsible. If the employees strike, injure, maim, or kill you, this store is not responsible.
Complete Agreement This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the use of the this.
Governing Law This agreement shall be construed, interpreted and the rights of the parties determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Our Mind (without reference to its choice of law provisions).
I'm agnostic on the whole global warming thing, but I get a little edgy about the use of statistics that correlate "150 years" of data to predict long term effects.
If the earth is given a typical 3 billion yr age, then 150 yrs is 0.000005% of the total data set.
Going with a more reasonable data: Dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago; call it 60 Myr. 150 yrs is 0.00025% of that span.
Going with 150,000 yrs (data from, say, polar ice samples) we're up to a more reasonable 0.15% data set.
Putting this in perspective: Taking 0.15% of the last 70 yrs of stock market performance data gives us the last 6 weeks of data. From 40 days of data, we will predict the stock trends for the next 70 years. That's not likely to work to well. And that's what it seems is being done with a fair portion of the global warming data.
But, as a scientist, I know that it's easy to poo-poo a challenging and complicated research field when I'm very ignorant of it:) -----
D. Fischer
Hmm... interesting. I can't think of any reason I'd want to make micropayments to someone in Europe. I suppose if I wanted to subscribe to use a travel agency database, and they charged per-page or something.
I agree that it's an interesting notion, but it seems like an interim solution, until currency exchange is cheap/easy enough for -payments. Credit cards already to automatic currency exchange when used in foreign nations. There is the transaction cost as others have pointed out, but it seems a bellwhether of things to come.
I guess it's a personal issue. Gold is pretty, and I like it in jewelry, and I like it as a piece of a diversified portfolio, but I don't like it as a major investment and it doesn't seem like a good minor currency for for most purposes.
Of course, I didn't see any use for -payments either, but PayPal may soon be rich because they did. -----
D. Fischer
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to troll, and I am not a qualified financial advisor.
Reading the basic "what is egold" blurb at their site, I must say that this looks like a terrible idea. If I understood correctly, they are marketing the idea of making purchases via gold redemption, and accepting payments in terms of gold purchases.
That's crazy!
- It's akin to paying/being-paid in stocks, and volatile ones at that. The most common advice given by financial advisors regarding investment vehicles is to buy-and-hold. Buying & selling stocks in the short-term for daily/monthly expenses would be considered foolhardy by most. But that seems to be the concept at e-gold.
- If you ever want to convert gold to curreccy, you'll take a hit from brokerage-type fees.
- You pay them for storage, unlike a bank which pays you to "store" your money.
I honestly can't think of a good reason someone would use e-gold. Even for international transactions, it seems using a credit card would be easier, simpler, and safer.
I welcome some comments from the pro-egold folks to explain why they use this service. -----
D. Fischer
Tipping is only necessary because it's necessary. (how's that for a tautology:)
Increase the menu prices, pay the servers more, stop tipping. Then servers are paid a decent wage, tipping is unnecessary, and I don't have to screw around with BistroMath everytime I go out to eat. And when I do choose to leave a tip, it will actually mean something, and not just be part of the bill that I have to calculate in my head. (speaking of which, why must I calculate my own bill when there's a nice shiny cash register on the counter?) -----
D. Fischer
Excellent! I'm working on a movie review site as a hobby. My concern was that I might hit a middle ground where I've got enough visitors to make it active and interesting, but not enough that I could use ads to cover hosting costs. I'd thought about asking for donations if that happens, but didn't think it work well. But you just told me how to make do it quickly and simply.
I have never done CC transactions myself, so I don't know the fees; but I've heard two bits of info over the years.
1) CC co's charge the store ~1%-3% per purchase for their services.
2) My bike-guy runs a small business; he told me he pays a flat fee for the day for all CC transactions, so if he has just one, he'd prefer to have a lot through the day.
3) I routinely pay bills ~$10 at the grocery store with a credit card.
None of this means that $1 transactions. -----
D. Fischer
Getting further OT, but the reason it works for those jobs is because it must. Generally, waiters, etc. are paid lower wages and make up the difference in tips.
Now, Ms. Manners would say that tipping is to reward good service, etc. I'm a paying customer, so shouldn't I get good service regardless?
I'd rather just pay a stated price for my food/service/etc and be done with it. If the staff is surly or service is poor then I'll go elsewhere. If they want to stay employed, and the owner wants to stay in business, they'll be sure to give good service.
The current system is like a performance show where the performers always get a standing ovation, even if they didn't deserve it. It's become meaningless. If I want to tip, to express an added measure of gratuity, then I will. But it shouldn't be expected nor required. -----
D. Fischer
This argument is compelling in many ways. A key difference though, is that the recording quality decreases fairly rapidly with each copy generation. Also, mass copying for friends/family/strangers is very time-consuming, and a little costly (gotta buy tapes; maybe postage). There is no centralized database of people's collections, and so on.
Napster - Rapid, free, digital, global distribution. This is a whole new ball game. The RIAA and artists should be scared. Casette tape, video-tape, or even "professional" pirates never posed such a threat to the industry. -----
D. Fischer
I originally addressed this argument, but then edited it out. I guess I should have left it it.
"I can copy music off the radio" -- this is true
"just as easily and "have my desire satisfied"" -- this is not accurate. To copy music from the radio you must:
- have the radio constantly, tape ready, finger poised to hit "record" at the first notes of a song you like. Still, you will miss out the first couple seconds. And most DJs talk over the start of a song, or end of a song when it opens or closes a set.
- or, you bulk an entire tape at a time. Since most stations' play lists are pathetically short, a 90 minute tape would likely get 85% of their playlist for the day. Of course, you must then edit that tape, copying the specific songs you want. Worse, you're probably using casette tape, so your "listen-to" version is 2nd generation already.
- Finally, you can only get the songs played on the radio. If you want the artist's full album, you still must buy it. Given the time it takes to acquire a few specific singles from the radio on casette, possibly with DJ talk-overs, and even shortened radio versions, and maybe with imperfect reception, most people would rather just spend the $14 and buy the CD. Their time is worth far more than that.
With Napster, you select songs, download, done. This is radically different from the current situation with the radio. -----
D. Fischer
While the history of the music biz' fear of radio is shows that htey haven't changed their basic attitude over the years, I don't think it necessarily provides a strong argument for a pro-Napster stance.
Radio, at least currently, plays a song or two from a new CD, chosen by the . It's played at random times during the day. The selection of songs from an artist's collection is very small. Finally, only the most popular songs continue to be played past a year or two.
Thus, radio serves as a commerical for musicians' full recordings. The listener hears whole and partial songs of random artists throughout the day. But if the listener really likes a song, radio does little to meet their desire. To hear it at their desire, they must purchase it. Radio is just a large demo system, providing snippets of an artist's work, and hopefully enticing people to buy the full recordings.
Contrast to Napster et. al.: There is no "tease"; they just put out. The listener can acquire the entire selection of music they want, making irrelevant the retail version. Whereas radio is a commerical, unsanctioned online distributions are full-fledged providers, doing an end-run around the stores, artists, and music companies. This is quite different from radio.
Radio whets your desire. Napster satisfies it. The musician is left holding the bag. -----
D. Fischer
I'm assume you are referring to my post about the Salon article, and the "four little words" were indeed "Work Made For Hire." The article explains why they were so significant; IIRC copyrights for "work made for hire" is owned by the companies, not the persons who created the work, similar to how work generated by an employee is owned by the company, not the individual. By changing the language slightly, artists' music done under contract became "work made for hire", giving the companies the copyright for the full term (95 yrs.); the artists would never have the copyright again.
This, of course, made the artists upset. And thus ensued a broohaha. -----
D. Fischer
This article at Salon.com describes how the RIAA suceeded in getting "four little words" added to the copyright light via Congress, that would essentially give them full ownership of all music written by musicians under contract within the past 30 years. Until now, after 35 years, the musician could reclaim copyright ownership, if they wanted to peddle their music to another distributor.
Fortunately, according to the article, an observant pro-musician lobbyist discovered it, and after a huge uproar, negative media, and explaining things to congress, the RIAA has requested Congress to nullify the terms that negatively impact musicians. -----
D. Fischer
I believe it's "sic my dog on you", as in to send them to attack, not "sick my dog on you", which I guess means to throw an ill dog at someone:)
Hmmm... checking dictionary.com... "sick" is an accepted variant of "sic". How 'bout that. Learn something new everyday, even in slashdot. -----
D. Fischer
Thanks for your response - I didn't mean to ask if a dynamic IP could completely mask my identity, since the ISP can always identify me at some level. I was more wondering about whether a web bug could identify me, which you addressed clearly.
I consider this to be like those annoying virus hoaxes I perpetually get: frustrating, bothersome, and "bad" on a fundamental level, but largely inconsequential. I'm more concerned about what the grocery store does with my shopper's card info.:/ -----
D. Fischer
Thanks for the info; but I still don't see how a web bug is useful.
To get the ISP logs, presumably, you need a subpeona, which means it's a criminal issue. If they are backtracking from an emailed document, couldn't use the recipient's server info, to backtrack the email to your ISP, and then to you.
But if the web bug is a marketing tool, will the company be able to convert my dynamic IP to my email, username, etc. without those server logs? I guess it is helpful in that it would give general information about how a document is being spread geographically, and perhaps what companies are accessing it. But that's pretty vauge, and certainly not a personal privacy problem.
I don't want to imply I think this is a good thing, but I don't see how it's a big deal so far (at least until everyone has their own static IP). -----
D. Fischer
My understanding is that my IP address is dynamically assigned when I connect -- it's not the same from session to session.
So what is gained from a web bug other than the knowledge of which ISP I'm using?
It's not like my computer name (tacogato) would tell them anything. The ISP doesn't have my address, so a web bug can't get it either unless they can convert the IP to phone number and then reverse lookup to get my address. Is any of this possible? Or is this only a concern for those with static IP addresses?
What about small businesses, often using a shared modem setup? Do they generally have static IPs? If not, it seems the web bug is not broadyly useful.
Could someone enlighten me please? -----
D. Fischer
Slashdot Mirror
"playing video games or watching a movie will not cause a formerly peace-loving individual to go on a shooting spree"
It's doubtful that just playing some games or watching some movies will cause someone to wig out, I can't help but wonder what the total effect from years of playing realistically violent games is.
Also, how does it influence the totality of our culture? I believe in a feedback-type system. We play violent games. We watch violent movies. We have violent TV shows. We talk about violence, think about violence. After a while, this degree of violence is passe, and no longer shocking to the masses. So the envelope is "pushed", and the violence in movie & TV increases. Video games follow suit, as the gamers now want more violence; increase in computer power allows the violence to be more realistic. Repeat cycle.
Where do we end up? Where does a child starting here, now, end up in 20 years with a steady diet of murders, deaths, and slayings?
Most of us separate it from reality fairly easily. But can everyone? Can a small child? Or even a young teenager?
As for censorship - there is none. Companies can still make violent games. Adults can still buy games. Kids can play games if their parents buy it for them. Kids just can't buy them directly. This is restrictive, the way movie ratings are, but it certainly isn't censorship.
I like violent games here and there. I'm also 29, understand the impact of real physical suffering, and I don't confuse pretend for real. I don't believe that's the case for the typical 10 yr. old. Parents are responsible for their children, but they can't monitor their behavior 24/7. So why not make parenting a little easier by having mandatory carding on high-violence games, just as we do with beer, movies, and magazines?
-----
D. Fischer
A few thoughts:
1) Funding and promotion for the entire media industry (entertainment, news, Slashdot, etc.) is largely predicated on the belief that people's behaviors can be influenced by the media; hence, commercials, ads, celebrity endorsements.
2) Nearly everyone in the media who earns money from the sale of violent, salacious, or obscene material holds that their work does not affect people's behavior. Interestingly, that work is usually funded & promoted in part by commercials.
=> The media is hypocritical.
Of course we are influenced by what we mentally "consume". Our entire culture is based upon information transfer. We read newspapers, books, magazines to gain info and thus have our behavior influenced and modified. We send our kids to school to hear teachers teach, so they gain knowledge & wisdom, and have their behavior change with that. Most of this is self-caused, and often purposeful. But not all. Young kids watch "Power Rangers" and then karate-kick friends and family in emulation. Teens watch hit comedies, and then talk about them, and introduce new slang into their language ("Not that there's anything wrong with that", "D'oh!", etc.)
To hold that the content of movies, books, music, games, etc. has no effect on anyone is naive, to say the least.
It seems a useful question to ask is whether we should have any restrictions on who can access what content, or none at all. (e.g. > 17 for "R" movies, "Playboy" can't be purchased by minors, need parents' permission to call the TV Psychics).
Perhaps first, we should ask not whether we are influenced by intellectual intake, but to what degree.
-----
D. Fischer
"Document your idea and mail a few coppies to yourself."
:)
Are the included police (coppies) there to protect your paperwork? How do they fit in the envelope? And doesn't the USPS forbid the mailing of human bodies?
I couldn't resist; that was just too good of a misspelling of "copies"
Seriously, that's a good idea, which I'ver heard a few times over the years. I plan on doing that to document the origins of my domain name, in case of future corporate antagonism.
-----
D. Fischer
One problem of just patenting/not-enforcing is that acquring a patent is a fairly expensive process. I believe it is on the order of $5k - $15k; partly because you need patent lawyers properly obfuscate your invention description :)
I like the idea of reducing the cost of the patent process, and implementing a very low cost anti-patent database (apdb).
Also, I understood them as suggesting the apdb be moderated by volunteers. The danger is that these new examiners could bring their own professional agendas into the process, seeking to hinder others to benefit their own company. Proper precautions would need to be worked out.
-----
D. Fischer
"Consider, for example, how willingly the same programmers usually sign over all rights to a large corporation for a salary"
RMS doesn't allow for the idea that "they made it, they own it" is then integrated with living and becomes "I owned it, but have effectively sold it to my company for my salary (so I can eat)".
As for the emotional strawman argument, I imagine great artists have strong emotional attachments to their finest works. That doesn't stop them from selling them to support themselves.
-----
D. Fischer
"You agree to the terms and conditions of this license by performing ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) using the :CRQ software."
I wonder when we'll see THIS EULA posted outside storefronts:
You agree to the terms and conditions of this license by performing ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: (1) entering this store.
Required Uses and Restrictions
By entering this store, you agree to purchase a minimum of $1000 US in merchandise in services. You also agree to accept all recommended Extended Warranty Contracts.
Limitation of Liability
(1) If this store collapse, maiming or killing you, this store is not responsible. If poorly placed objects fall from shelves, striking your body, this store is not responsible.
(2) If the employees taunt, ridicule, or insult you, this store is not held responsible. If the employees strike, injure, maim, or kill you, this store is not responsible.
Complete Agreement
This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the use of the this.
Governing Law
This agreement shall be construed, interpreted and the rights of the parties determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Our Mind (without reference to its choice of law provisions).
skoda
-----
D. Fischer
"A marketing company could not afford sending junk mail to an "old" address. "
Sure they can. That's why every direct mail catalog is addressed
"To John Smith, or current resident"
They figure if Smith is gone, perhaps they'll pick up a new customer with the new residents.
-----
D. Fischer
I'm agnostic on the whole global warming thing, but I get a little edgy about the use of statistics that correlate "150 years" of data to predict long term effects.
:)
If the earth is given a typical 3 billion yr age, then 150 yrs is 0.000005% of the total data set.
Going with a more reasonable data: Dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago; call it 60 Myr. 150 yrs is 0.00025% of that span.
Going with 150,000 yrs (data from, say, polar ice samples) we're up to a more reasonable 0.15% data set.
Putting this in perspective: Taking 0.15% of the last 70 yrs of stock market performance data gives us the last 6 weeks of data. From 40 days of data, we will predict the stock trends for the next 70 years. That's not likely to work to well. And that's what it seems is being done with a fair portion of the global warming data.
But, as a scientist, I know that it's easy to poo-poo a challenging and complicated research field when I'm very ignorant of it
-----
D. Fischer
Hmm... interesting. I can't think of any reason I'd want to make micropayments to someone in Europe. I suppose if I wanted to subscribe to use a travel agency database, and they charged per-page or something.
I agree that it's an interesting notion, but it seems like an interim solution, until currency exchange is cheap/easy enough for -payments. Credit cards already to automatic currency exchange when used in foreign nations. There is the transaction cost as others have pointed out, but it seems a bellwhether of things to come.
I guess it's a personal issue. Gold is pretty, and I like it in jewelry, and I like it as a piece of a diversified portfolio, but I don't like it as a major investment and it doesn't seem like a good minor currency for for most purposes.
Of course, I didn't see any use for -payments either, but PayPal may soon be rich because they did.
-----
D. Fischer
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to troll, and I am not a qualified financial advisor.
Reading the basic "what is egold" blurb at their site, I must say that this looks like a terrible idea. If I understood correctly, they are marketing the idea of making purchases via gold redemption, and accepting payments in terms of gold purchases.
That's crazy!
- It's akin to paying/being-paid in stocks, and volatile ones at that. The most common advice given by financial advisors regarding investment vehicles is to buy-and-hold. Buying & selling stocks in the short-term for daily/monthly expenses would be considered foolhardy by most. But that seems to be the concept at e-gold.
- If you ever want to convert gold to curreccy, you'll take a hit from brokerage-type fees.
- You pay them for storage, unlike a bank which pays you to "store" your money.
I honestly can't think of a good reason someone would use e-gold. Even for international transactions, it seems using a credit card would be easier, simpler, and safer.
I welcome some comments from the pro-egold folks to explain why they use this service.
-----
D. Fischer
IANAB (I am not a broker), and I don't know anything about e-gold. But, I do know that gold has not been a good investment over the past 20 years.
:(
http://www.kitco.com/charts/histori calgold.html Go here, and do some historical graphs.
Historical average 1833-1999: $25/oz to 1968. Then it lept to $600 in 1980, dropped to $400 in '82, and bounced between $300 - $400 until now.
Remember: you want investments to increase in value, and debts to decrease. Investing in gold & storage seems to reverse that.
But I'm just an optics geek, and not a gold guru.
-----
D. Fischer
Tipping is only necessary because it's necessary. (how's that for a tautology :)
Increase the menu prices, pay the servers more, stop tipping. Then servers are paid a decent wage, tipping is unnecessary, and I don't have to screw around with BistroMath everytime I go out to eat. And when I do choose to leave a tip, it will actually mean something, and not just be part of the bill that I have to calculate in my head. (speaking of which, why must I calculate my own bill when there's a nice shiny cash register on the counter?)
-----
D. Fischer
Excellent! I'm working on a movie review site as a hobby. My concern was that I might hit a middle ground where I've got enough visitors to make it active and interesting, but not enough that I could use ads to cover hosting costs. I'd thought about asking for donations if that happens, but didn't think it work well. But you just told me how to make do it quickly and simply.
Thanks.
-----
D. Fischer
It's not because Citibank is "nice"; by federal law all credit card companies must limit your exposure to theft to $50.
-----
D. Fischer
I have never done CC transactions myself, so I don't know the fees; but I've heard two bits of info over the years.
1) CC co's charge the store ~1%-3% per purchase for their services.
2) My bike-guy runs a small business; he told me he pays a flat fee for the day for all CC transactions, so if he has just one, he'd prefer to have a lot through the day.
3) I routinely pay bills ~$10 at the grocery store with a credit card.
None of this means that $1 transactions.
-----
D. Fischer
Getting further OT, but the reason it works for those jobs is because it must. Generally, waiters, etc. are paid lower wages and make up the difference in tips.
Now, Ms. Manners would say that tipping is to reward good service, etc. I'm a paying customer, so shouldn't I get good service regardless?
I'd rather just pay a stated price for my food/service/etc and be done with it. If the staff is surly or service is poor then I'll go elsewhere. If they want to stay employed, and the owner wants to stay in business, they'll be sure to give good service.
The current system is like a performance show where the performers always get a standing ovation, even if they didn't deserve it. It's become meaningless. If I want to tip, to express an added measure of gratuity, then I will. But it shouldn't be expected nor required.
-----
D. Fischer
This argument is compelling in many ways. A key difference though, is that the recording quality decreases fairly rapidly with each copy generation. Also, mass copying for friends/family/strangers is very time-consuming, and a little costly (gotta buy tapes; maybe postage). There is no centralized database of people's collections, and so on.
Napster - Rapid, free, digital, global distribution. This is a whole new ball game. The RIAA and artists should be scared. Casette tape, video-tape, or even "professional" pirates never posed such a threat to the industry.
-----
D. Fischer
I originally addressed this argument, but then edited it out. I guess I should have left it it.
"I can copy music off the radio" -- this is true
"just as easily and "have my desire satisfied"" -- this is not accurate. To copy music from the radio you must:
- have the radio constantly, tape ready, finger poised to hit "record" at the first notes of a song you like. Still, you will miss out the first couple seconds. And most DJs talk over the start of a song, or end of a song when it opens or closes a set.
- or, you bulk an entire tape at a time. Since most stations' play lists are pathetically short, a 90 minute tape would likely get 85% of their playlist for the day. Of course, you must then edit that tape, copying the specific songs you want. Worse, you're probably using casette tape, so your "listen-to" version is 2nd generation already.
- Finally, you can only get the songs played on the radio. If you want the artist's full album, you still must buy it. Given the time it takes to acquire a few specific singles from the radio on casette, possibly with DJ talk-overs, and even shortened radio versions, and maybe with imperfect reception, most people would rather just spend the $14 and buy the CD. Their time is worth far more than that.
With Napster, you select songs, download, done. This is radically different from the current situation with the radio.
-----
D. Fischer
While the history of the music biz' fear of radio is shows that htey haven't changed their basic attitude over the years, I don't think it necessarily provides a strong argument for a pro-Napster stance.
Radio, at least currently, plays a song or two from a new CD, chosen by the . It's played at random times during the day. The selection of songs from an artist's collection is very small. Finally, only the most popular songs continue to be played past a year or two.
Thus, radio serves as a commerical for musicians' full recordings. The listener hears whole and partial songs of random artists throughout the day. But if the listener really likes a song, radio does little to meet their desire. To hear it at their desire, they must purchase it. Radio is just a large demo system, providing snippets of an artist's work, and hopefully enticing people to buy the full recordings.
Contrast to Napster et. al.: There is no "tease"; they just put out. The listener can acquire the entire selection of music they want, making irrelevant the retail version. Whereas radio is a commerical, unsanctioned online distributions are full-fledged providers, doing an end-run around the stores, artists, and music companies. This is quite different from radio.
Radio whets your desire. Napster satisfies it. The musician is left holding the bag.
-----
D. Fischer
I'm assume you are referring to my post about the Salon article, and the "four little words" were indeed "Work Made For Hire." The article explains why they were so significant; IIRC copyrights for "work made for hire" is owned by the companies, not the persons who created the work, similar to how work generated by an employee is owned by the company, not the individual. By changing the language slightly, artists' music done under contract became "work made for hire", giving the companies the copyright for the full term (95 yrs.); the artists would never have the copyright again.
This, of course, made the artists upset. And thus ensued a broohaha.
-----
D. Fischer
This article at Salon.com describes how the RIAA suceeded in getting "four little words" added to the copyright light via Congress, that would essentially give them full ownership of all music written by musicians under contract within the past 30 years. Until now, after 35 years, the musician could reclaim copyright ownership, if they wanted to peddle their music to another distributor.
Fortunately, according to the article, an observant pro-musician lobbyist discovered it, and after a huge uproar, negative media, and explaining things to congress, the RIAA has requested Congress to nullify the terms that negatively impact musicians.
-----
D. Fischer
(continuing the pendantic grammar...)
:)
I believe it's "sic my dog on you", as in to send them to attack, not "sick my dog on you", which I guess means to throw an ill dog at someone
Hmmm... checking dictionary.com... "sick" is an accepted variant of "sic". How 'bout that. Learn something new everyday, even in slashdot.
-----
D. Fischer
Thanks for your response - I didn't mean to ask if a dynamic IP could completely mask my identity, since the ISP can always identify me at some level. I was more wondering about whether a web bug could identify me, which you addressed clearly.
:/
I consider this to be like those annoying virus hoaxes I perpetually get: frustrating, bothersome, and "bad" on a fundamental level, but largely inconsequential. I'm more concerned about what the grocery store does with my shopper's card info.
-----
D. Fischer
Thanks for the info; but I still don't see how a web bug is useful.
To get the ISP logs, presumably, you need a subpeona, which means it's a criminal issue. If they are backtracking from an emailed document, couldn't use the recipient's server info, to backtrack the email to your ISP, and then to you.
But if the web bug is a marketing tool, will the company be able to convert my dynamic IP to my email, username, etc. without those server logs? I guess it is helpful in that it would give general information about how a document is being spread geographically, and perhaps what companies are accessing it. But that's pretty vauge, and certainly not a personal privacy problem.
I don't want to imply I think this is a good thing, but I don't see how it's a big deal so far (at least until everyone has their own static IP).
-----
D. Fischer
Earnest question here:
My understanding is that my IP address is dynamically assigned when I connect -- it's not the same from session to session.
So what is gained from a web bug other than the knowledge of which ISP I'm using?
It's not like my computer name (tacogato) would tell them anything. The ISP doesn't have my address, so a web bug can't get it either unless they can convert the IP to phone number and then reverse lookup to get my address. Is any of this possible? Or is this only a concern for those with static IP addresses?
What about small businesses, often using a shared modem setup? Do they generally have static IPs? If not, it seems the web bug is not broadyly useful.
Could someone enlighten me please?
-----
D. Fischer