Wow, could you sell out a little more? Did Take Two eat your lunch or what? When the Big Wigs at a company start hyping a game instead of the designer, you know your in trouble.
The COO and the President. Sure Mr. Houser's title is also Executive Producer, but that is pretty far from designer. What are these guys going to do that's so innovative? Implement a virtua tennis control scheme? Oh, wait - can I get tons of Bling for winning matches against the hardest hitters in the 'hood? Yo, does it have dope tracks that I can get my table on to? Can I play against Forrest Gump?
When the other person is the VP of the US - and a very influential entity in the high end business world - a favor is worth a little more than "hey can I borrow $20.00?"
If Dick Cheney shot me by accident, I would appologize too. There is nothing like having a VP owe you a favor. Plus, if Cheney ever tried to back out or distance himself, this guy could just start screaming "I was being threatened!" It doesn't matter if it's true, as the Media will take anything that will sell - and that story would sell.
A short socially akward moment is completely worth the payoff.
Its not the ability to target that changed. Its having an innate sense of target to target movement.
The tendency was for the shooter to freeze after a sucessful hit on their first target, being that the experience was tramatic. It has absolutely nothing to do with hand eye coordination.
The new recruits experience the same trauma, they just feel the effects AFTER the firefight. They innately understand the target to target movement due to repeatedly playing in scenarios where they were under fire from multiple points. The FPS genre, even though not an adequate trainer in regards to live weapons fire, is a very good simulator when it comes to establishing a concept - like squad movement or pinch points.
Hand eye coordination will help them hit a target, not change their behavior after hitting said target.
Actually, I can't remember where I read this - someone link if they know what I'm talking about.
There was an interview with a Marine Drill Sgt. who was commenting on how video games have affected his recruits. He said that one of the hardest things to teach was target to target movement. The act of killing a human is a traumatic experience and the most common reaction is to freeze on the spot. This is not a desireable trait to have on a battlefeild.
He then went on to say that the kids he has come into training who play alot of video games don't have this issue. They move from target to target like it was natural, the effects of all the shooting and killing don't manifest until AFTER the scenario at hand is over.
That says alot to me. The dehumanization part isn't there, but the ability to temporarily pause your natural response because you are relaxed with the concept of target to target movement is.
I think one of the issues is with clearly defining fair use. The DRM answer is really not appropriate as it restricts me in the amount of times I can exercise fair use - not a very elegant solution.
But being that the delivery vehicle now has the same easy, and in some ways easier, method of dispertion as the content - there is no clear borders concerning rights. It's like a diagram with overlapping parts (Ven? Vin?).
The underlying problem is that the business model of capitalizing on the distribution is now broken. Distro is done by people to other people within the same target. I think this may actually hinder some people with great talent from getting into creative endevors because they fear they won't be able to support themselves. True, an artist does it for the art - but there is a real desire for people to be able to make a living doing things that they love. Marginalizing their ability to do so is not really the best for creating a "high quality" culture. I mean, I can only look at High School level artwork for so long.
Also, what happens to the peripheral business generated in order to fuel the controled distribution plan? Advertising, Marketing, Graphic Design, Printing, recording studios, ect...
Now a reduction in some of these services would be OK in some areas. I can really do without marketing people who do research on "Nag Marketing" aimed at children, but I do not want to see artists lose daywork as Graphic Designers. I also don't want to see recording studios close because no one can pay them enough to record.
Perhaps this will only create problems for large lumbering business entities. Hopefully it will only effect the giant corporations that have a vested interest in maintaining the distribution controls in place. Maybe small shops are agile enough, and have overhead low enough, to take the down side of losing copyrights in stride as free advertising.
On an unrelated subject, I would really like to make an image with DRM type code in it that will change the composition of itself everytime it is copied. That way you can distribute it freely AND everyone will have an original work.
Considering that Humans are 60% water, I think we may be clouds too. And if we are clouds, then we must be at least 50% watermellon. With those numbers, its obvious that when you eat a watermellon, it is actually a little less than 50% Monkey.
This is proof that God doesn't want us to be vegetarians, otherwise why would he make water = monkey meat?
I hate to say it, but they will probably alienate the doctors.
Do the math, there are a lot more "average joe" moviegoers than "super important doctor" movie goers. You alienatte the few to make the many happy. With theater revenues dropping I think that they will get behind this as soon as possible.
After rereading my comments and thinking about it for a while, I think my tone throughout this exchange may have been a little sharp. I aplogize, that's not the proper way to conduct a discussion.
Jesus christ man. If you understand that I am using "stealing" in place of "copyright infringement" then what the hell is your problem?
I'm not applying my emotions here. I recognize your statements and fully understand them, so you can quit with the crap. I'm sorry you feel that I am treating this as a debate class, but that is far from the truth.
Maybe I should try to make my point in laymans terms so you can choose the correct terminology for me, as it seems you deem my vocabulary choice as a hurdle.
You decide to make a movie with the intent to show it in exchange for money.
You fund this movie with your own money, take your time to make it, and use your skills in photography and editing to refine your vision.
This movie has two purposes; to tell a story and to generate revenue for you. I have already stateted that this would be the intent of this particular movie, not all that you create. You may very well create movies with other intentions.
The content of the movie (story, characters, themes) is being distributed into the public, and I understand your statements on that. There is no WAY I can prevent people from redistributing those things, nor should I. If Bob goes to see your movie and tells Sue the story from it, he did not steal from you. He actually could have created the potential for Sue to go see it because she is interested in it.
When you begin to show your movie for a profit, there is no guarantee that you WILL generate a profit. There is also nothing that says just because you made something that you SHOULD generate a profit, market factors detirmine that.
Yet, when those who do not have permission to distribute your work do so without compensating you - you are being stolen from. Loss of potential profit is still a loss. There was the potential for your movie to generate the revenue you were looking for, and that opportunity was taken from you by those who desired to view your creation without paying. If this has to be discussed as copyright infringement, sure - because that what it is. But there are aspects of copyright infringement that parallel those of theft, and that is what I am keying on.
That's it. Now, perhaps I have not been clear on exactly what I think constitutes this type of consideration. I understand that not all content is created with the intent of profit. Many people create things out of the joy of doing so, regardless of profit. I know this is my view of art, as I don't get paid for most of my work. If the creator wants it to be freely distributed, then by all means go ahead. I don't post stuff on the web and not expect it to be propegated.
That having been said, I still do not understand why creations created with the intent of generating revenue should be freely available to all? I really do not understand this. I understand your statements about trade secrets and I understand that I cannot copyright information and attempt to hold someone financially liable for using that information. Trust me, I get it.
Should I let someone photocopy one of my pieces of art and sell them at 5 bucks a pop with no compensation to me? What if my intent was to have that particular piece available for free? What about if I'm selling this particular piece for 20 dollars and someone photocopies it and then starts giving it away? I flat out do not understand how these things should be allowed. I understand they happen, and I am willing to accept them to some degree as a fact of life.
I usually want to discuss these things in terms of "how to embrace delivery vehicle's ease of delivery for creating new types of content", but I haven't been able to get that far because you keep talking to me like a kid. Perhaps I have chosen the wrong vocabulary, but I'm trying to convey my perception here, so please quit thinking I'm debating you. Quite often my method of refinement in a discussion takes a similar tone to debate - it's the way my family talks.
Please don't assume that because I disagree with you that I don't understand - or need help. That's pretty condecending, and typical around here.
Your Library analogy doesn't work because that example deals with a limited supply, a book, that was originally purchased at cost. I can rent a movie from Netflix too, that doesn't make downloading something for free any more acceptable.
You have to take the book back so someone else can enjoy it. The delivery vehicle carries with it limitations that will keep rampant piracy in check. The real problem occurs when the new delivery vehicle is void of such hinderances.
Now we have an issue of people trying to obsficate the concept of stealing by arguing there is nothing to steal - there is no physical entity. You have acknowledged that if the cost of resources is not reimbursed then the creation of new content stops. This is something we both agree on. Yet, you fail to recognize that not everyone is out to be a cultural philanthropist. You extend the concept of lending a book out to be equal with someone giving away 1000 free copies of it. Those are not the same.
To be purposefully blind to the glaring difference between those two examples, and then defend it by claiming that society at large becomes richer is fundamentally incorrect. Society becomes richer because they took the hard work, time, skill, and resources from the individuals who created whatever content is being distributed at no cost. The economics of the situation is that the creator bears all of the burden of increasing society's wealth.
As for my God given rights, I am the creator - so the creation is mine. Why do you think you have some God given right to free access to my creation?
No. It makes ABSOLUTELY ZERO DIFFERENCE to them. The ONLY case where it makes a difference is if the person would otherwise purchase a copy of some of the content copied, and does not purchase said contents because she copied it. This is the ONLY case that matters.
While I can understand, and agree, that this is really the only case that truly matters - there is an aspect of your statement I do not understand.
If a person wouldn't purchase a copy of something because it wasn't important enough to them - why would they then take it if it was "free"? That argument just seems circular to me. I don't want it --> I can obtain it for free --> Since I don't want it, but I can obntain it for free - I am justified in taking it.
If the issue is with the cost, and you if someone doesn't feel that the cost is justified - well that's really too bad. The manufacturer detirmines cost. True, the consumer determines worth or value, but perceived lack of value does not give someone the right to just take something. It may motivate, but not justify.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my statements. I have read your posts and you do acknowledge the freeloaders. I also don't condemn using downloads as a method of "trying before flying."
I understand the freemarket scenario, as I'm a big fan. I also think if you are using this method of getting the content you want because it is the only conduit available to you then you have no other options and are well within a morally acceptable boundry. I don't think this even touches on entitlement, because you don't display that attitude. For you this isn't a "free media for me because I'm entitled" scenario, its a "I have no other option" scenario.
I do not usually think the worst of everyone, but I do take some pretty hardline stances. I replied to your post as a matter of respect, because your statements had well thought out reasoning behind them - but did also happen to be remarkable similar to those who feel they have a right to everything without a cost. It was not clear that my post was not directly aimed at you, but was mocking the general attitude those who feel entitled to free everything.
I don't discuss these matters with the "OMG! EvErY thing should be FR33! Britany Spears suxxorz, but I want her single anywayz!" crowd. I prefer to debate those with a more solid understanding of the matter, with an alternate opinion.
While I may think that technically what you are doing in downloading the music may be illegal (depending on copyrights of the creator and country of origin, blah, blah, blah...), I am not one to think that law = morality. Denying yourself media you desire, that you would happily obtain through more legal channels if it was available, in order to stay compliant with some rules written in a book somewhere is not always reasonable in extreme circumstances.
yeah, but the open source community is maintained by people who fund it through their own "private" funding.
Some devs contribute software they write during their time off from their "paying gig". Some open source teams are funded by private investors who obtained the funds to donate from their employement or profit generating endevors. Others happen to have a consulting business model, and the open source material is actually a form of marketing and placement - not the end product. A single self serving entity won't break this model because funds keep flowing in from the outside. Open source, as a whole, does not generate enough self sustaining revenue. They also don't distribute funds amongst themselves equally.
Now lets take communism, which is the point I was talking to. As a social and economic system - it needs to be self sustaining in order to work. One worker in this system who acts as a drain on resources, instead of as a source of production, will cause a significant reduction in effeciency. Taking the human element into consideration - others will follow that example when they find it is the still returns the same reward for less effort. Then the system crumbles.
Back to open source. OSS doesn't attract people of that mindset, but it also rewards those based on individual effort. If a programmer contributes more often with better material - they are more likely to be picked up by a funded endevor. In a communist system, compensation is based on need - not merit. So there is no motivation to accel in your work other than personal satisfaction.
I refuse to feed the corporate beast that the recording industry represents.
You forgot this part:
"just as long as I am still able to get everything that this beast is feeding up."
If you want it - pay, if not - don't. The "I don't think it's worth the money so I don't pay" stance is pathetic. The legit users of torrent sites are overshadowed by the illegitimate ones. Is it the fault of the tracker sites? No, its the ripper and the encoder. The population at large can't tell the difference.
I also the "try before buy" stance. If you can get a really awesome full featured demo of a dev suite or get a lower res version of a movie to see if its any good before you buy a legit copy - cool. That's generally considered being a smart consumer. But, if you use torrent sites to get free copies of things you can't afford because you want them - well now you're just pawning off your weak economic status onto those who labored to create the item you so covet.
Everyone thinks communism is great as long as they get to be an administrative worker.
I don't see anyone lineing up to be a factory worker. You have to FORCE someone to be a factory worker, they don't want to do for the greater good of all (supposedly). Forced labor will not be as productive as labor from someone who is doing something they want to do. This circumstance occurs across the board in a communist system, and exhibits itself as a slow economic entropy that will ultimately fail under the weight of those who chose to be unproductive because the state pays for everything anyways.
Ignoring the desire people have to be recognized and compensated for individual acheivement is a must have ingredient for flawed economic and social systems.
Perhaps I misunderstood what exactly your point was, which is why I was asking for clarification.
You didn't misunderstand, you attacked my position with purposely obtuse statements in an effort to cover up the fact your position is ridiculously ignorant. I have no urge to calm down. My repeated use of the term Distribution Rights should be ample enough to make my point. I mean, come on - It has a concrete definition. I am in no way obliged to do your thinking for you.
Simple, you say you are allowed to control where something is made available, and I gave an example of making it available. Are you just referring to which retail outlets are allowed to sell it or something?
Jesus, you haven't made it available, you just brought one instance to a location where it wasn't available. Inside the boundaries of commerce, which is the framework for every discussion of this kind, that is not even relevant. Once again, Distro Rights control retail outlets, but you knew that didn't you. I do not cater to those who purposefully play stupid. If you sell ONE COPY, you haven't exactly made a difference of its availability by a factor anywhere close to noticable. Yay for you and your scemantic argument.
Seeing and showing are two sides of the same coin. You can't see something that ain't shown. If I have something, I can show it to whoever I want and you are irrelevant to that.
Wow, you really don't understand anything about this do you? In your effort to prove your right you have taken your ONE example of a SINGLE INSTANCE and tried to make it relevant to content distribution channels. Once again, probably the most idiotic use of intelligence I have witnessed to date.
If you want to show five friends your copy of Girls Gone Wild while you reside in some far off place where it wasn't available for sale or public viewing, you can - that's called "Fair Use". Either you don't understand the point your trying to defend (Fair Use) or you are purposfully feigning ignorance. Either way, it an embarrasment. If you want to show it at a movie theater or other public venue without permission - you are breaking INTERNATIONAL laws.
Can you get away with it? Sure, on a scale negligible to any metric that matters. But if I create a movie in the US, and I do not give permission for it to be Distributed to Germany, and some German theater chain starts showing it - guess whos getting sued. This isn't an American thing, these are concepts covered by the Berne Convention.
Again, are you just referring to public displays or something?
You can't be this ignorant.
If you're going to use ambiguous terms to make an argument, you might consider not flying off the handle when your statements aren't clear and somebody politely asks for clarification.
The term distribution rights is not ambiguous. It has been nitpicked and dragged through the courts in every country with an established legal system and the capacity for international commerce. It is anything BUT ambiguous. Your ability to comprehend is impared. You never politely asked for clarification, you attacked my opinion with the most absurd and irrelevant examples you could thing of to make an invalid point seem valid.
You stated:"You're arguing that you are allowed to go into any country in the world and take my property away." When in fact I did not. You misinterpeted it, and then on that misinterpretation you made assumption about how the aspect of enforcement would be handled. None of that behavior is worthy of respect. Then you began to attack me personally by stating: In fact, the only thing even related to rights is your assertion that you have more rights in every country in the world than everybody else in the world. That is a pretty incredible leap in logic, and the results were intended to insult on a level that only those of your "superior intellect" would understand. You wanted to use the good
I would say that the problem with fair use is that the laws were all written using the media vehicle's inherent limitations as a way to self regulation.
Media used to be difficult to capture. Sure, you could record a song off the radio or VHS a TV show, but the extent of what you did with that copy was kept in check by the difficulty of propegating those copies.
The cost to reproduce VHS tapes or Cassettes with the intent to sell often required an investment, of time and money, so large that it didn't warrant the effort to make a profit. Those who could, and did, invest those resources - they were so far outside the realm of fair use that it was undeniable.
Now we have digital media. Unlawful reproduction of a work with intent to sell is now really cost effective. Not only that, but lawful reproduction is so effortless that many people have innocently blurred the line between "backup" and "multiple copies distributed at no cost under the scemantics of backup".
Then we have the people who cannot tell the difference between "Theft" and "Copyright Infringement." The lack of physical material being stolen equates to a lack of wrongdoing for these people. The concept that the initial resources used to create the work - time, talent, skill - are not intrinsic to the work without the presence of a physical delivery vehicle. If there is no "thing" then its worth nothing.
Third, we have the big money overstepping their bounds by adding controls to the media to protect their investment. Now, they are in the right to protect their investment - but not at the cost of compromising my rights as a consumer. Limiting how many times I can rip a song is asanine, but it wouldn't have happened if people didn't overstep their bounds under the guise of "fair use."
The only way to fix this problem is to create and embrace a new business model that takes advantage of media's new found freedom without having to rely on its limitations as a way of enforcing the profit mechanism.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, well I have Cyan and Magenta - enjoy printing without those.
Red Herring
Wow, could you sell out a little more? Did Take Two eat your lunch or what? When the Big Wigs at a company start hyping a game instead of the designer, you know your in trouble.
The COO and the President. Sure Mr. Houser's title is also Executive Producer, but that is pretty far from designer. What are these guys going to do that's so innovative? Implement a virtua tennis control scheme? Oh, wait - can I get tons of Bling for winning matches against the hardest hitters in the 'hood? Yo, does it have dope tracks that I can get my table on to? Can I play against Forrest Gump?
Seriously, this is pathetic.
Somewhat.
The forces in Iraq are working under a ridiculous rules of engagement set. This is to prevent an even worse international backlash.
If the US forces were to have to fight off an internal revolt, I'm not exactly sure they would exhibit that same amount of restraint.
That is unless it was intelligently designed to do that.
There is no way that these pieces of legislation could have just materialized out of thin air, they must have been designed by an intelligent entity.
And since you can't prove I'm wrong, that must mean that New Jersey and Kansas have the most intelligent people living there.
Wait...
When the other person is the VP of the US - and a very influential entity in the high end business world - a favor is worth a little more than "hey can I borrow $20.00?"
Think it through man.
If Dick Cheney shot me by accident, I would appologize too. There is nothing like having a VP owe you a favor. Plus, if Cheney ever tried to back out or distance himself, this guy could just start screaming "I was being threatened!" It doesn't matter if it's true, as the Media will take anything that will sell - and that story would sell.
A short socially akward moment is completely worth the payoff.
Its not the ability to target that changed. Its having an innate sense of target to target movement.
The tendency was for the shooter to freeze after a sucessful hit on their first target, being that the experience was tramatic. It has absolutely nothing to do with hand eye coordination.
The new recruits experience the same trauma, they just feel the effects AFTER the firefight. They innately understand the target to target movement due to repeatedly playing in scenarios where they were under fire from multiple points. The FPS genre, even though not an adequate trainer in regards to live weapons fire, is a very good simulator when it comes to establishing a concept - like squad movement or pinch points.
Hand eye coordination will help them hit a target, not change their behavior after hitting said target.
Actually, I can't remember where I read this - someone link if they know what I'm talking about.
There was an interview with a Marine Drill Sgt. who was commenting on how video games have affected his recruits. He said that one of the hardest things to teach was target to target movement. The act of killing a human is a traumatic experience and the most common reaction is to freeze on the spot. This is not a desireable trait to have on a battlefeild.
He then went on to say that the kids he has come into training who play alot of video games don't have this issue. They move from target to target like it was natural, the effects of all the shooting and killing don't manifest until AFTER the scenario at hand is over.
That says alot to me. The dehumanization part isn't there, but the ability to temporarily pause your natural response because you are relaxed with the concept of target to target movement is.
Interesting points.
I think one of the issues is with clearly defining fair use. The DRM answer is really not appropriate as it restricts me in the amount of times I can exercise fair use - not a very elegant solution.
But being that the delivery vehicle now has the same easy, and in some ways easier, method of dispertion as the content - there is no clear borders concerning rights. It's like a diagram with overlapping parts (Ven? Vin?).
The underlying problem is that the business model of capitalizing on the distribution is now broken. Distro is done by people to other people within the same target. I think this may actually hinder some people with great talent from getting into creative endevors because they fear they won't be able to support themselves. True, an artist does it for the art - but there is a real desire for people to be able to make a living doing things that they love. Marginalizing their ability to do so is not really the best for creating a "high quality" culture. I mean, I can only look at High School level artwork for so long.
Also, what happens to the peripheral business generated in order to fuel the controled distribution plan? Advertising, Marketing, Graphic Design, Printing, recording studios, ect...
Now a reduction in some of these services would be OK in some areas. I can really do without marketing people who do research on "Nag Marketing" aimed at children, but I do not want to see artists lose daywork as Graphic Designers. I also don't want to see recording studios close because no one can pay them enough to record.
Perhaps this will only create problems for large lumbering business entities. Hopefully it will only effect the giant corporations that have a vested interest in maintaining the distribution controls in place. Maybe small shops are agile enough, and have overhead low enough, to take the down side of losing copyrights in stride as free advertising.
On an unrelated subject, I would really like to make an image with DRM type code in it that will change the composition of itself everytime it is copied. That way you can distribute it freely AND everyone will have an original work.
Considering that Humans are 60% water, I think we may be clouds too. And if we are clouds, then we must be at least 50% watermellon. With those numbers, its obvious that when you eat a watermellon, it is actually a little less than 50% Monkey.
This is proof that God doesn't want us to be vegetarians, otherwise why would he make water = monkey meat?
I hate to say it, but they will probably alienate the doctors.
Do the math, there are a lot more "average joe" moviegoers than "super important doctor" movie goers. You alienatte the few to make the many happy. With theater revenues dropping I think that they will get behind this as soon as possible.
After rereading my comments and thinking about it for a while, I think my tone throughout this exchange may have been a little sharp. I aplogize, that's not the proper way to conduct a discussion.
Jesus christ man. If you understand that I am using "stealing" in place of "copyright infringement" then what the hell is your problem?
I'm not applying my emotions here. I recognize your statements and fully understand them, so you can quit with the crap. I'm sorry you feel that I am treating this as a debate class, but that is far from the truth.
Maybe I should try to make my point in laymans terms so you can choose the correct terminology for me, as it seems you deem my vocabulary choice as a hurdle.
You decide to make a movie with the intent to show it in exchange for money.
You fund this movie with your own money, take your time to make it, and use your skills in photography and editing to refine your vision.
This movie has two purposes; to tell a story and to generate revenue for you. I have already stateted that this would be the intent of this particular movie, not all that you create. You may very well create movies with other intentions.
The content of the movie (story, characters, themes) is being distributed into the public, and I understand your statements on that. There is no WAY I can prevent people from redistributing those things, nor should I. If Bob goes to see your movie and tells Sue the story from it, he did not steal from you. He actually could have created the potential for Sue to go see it because she is interested in it.
When you begin to show your movie for a profit, there is no guarantee that you WILL generate a profit. There is also nothing that says just because you made something that you SHOULD generate a profit, market factors detirmine that.
Yet, when those who do not have permission to distribute your work do so without compensating you - you are being stolen from. Loss of potential profit is still a loss. There was the potential for your movie to generate the revenue you were looking for, and that opportunity was taken from you by those who desired to view your creation without paying. If this has to be discussed as copyright infringement, sure - because that what it is. But there are aspects of copyright infringement that parallel those of theft, and that is what I am keying on.
That's it. Now, perhaps I have not been clear on exactly what I think constitutes this type of consideration. I understand that not all content is created with the intent of profit. Many people create things out of the joy of doing so, regardless of profit. I know this is my view of art, as I don't get paid for most of my work. If the creator wants it to be freely distributed, then by all means go ahead. I don't post stuff on the web and not expect it to be propegated.
That having been said, I still do not understand why creations created with the intent of generating revenue should be freely available to all? I really do not understand this. I understand your statements about trade secrets and I understand that I cannot copyright information and attempt to hold someone financially liable for using that information. Trust me, I get it.
Should I let someone photocopy one of my pieces of art and sell them at 5 bucks a pop with no compensation to me? What if my intent was to have that particular piece available for free? What about if I'm selling this particular piece for 20 dollars and someone photocopies it and then starts giving it away? I flat out do not understand how these things should be allowed. I understand they happen, and I am willing to accept them to some degree as a fact of life.
I usually want to discuss these things in terms of "how to embrace delivery vehicle's ease of delivery for creating new types of content", but I haven't been able to get that far because you keep talking to me like a kid. Perhaps I have chosen the wrong vocabulary, but I'm trying to convey my perception here, so please quit thinking I'm debating you. Quite often my method of refinement in a discussion takes a similar tone to debate - it's the way my family talks.
Please don't assume that because I disagree with you that I don't understand - or need help. That's pretty condecending, and typical around here.
Your Library analogy doesn't work because that example deals with a limited supply, a book, that was originally purchased at cost. I can rent a movie from Netflix too, that doesn't make downloading something for free any more acceptable.
You have to take the book back so someone else can enjoy it. The delivery vehicle carries with it limitations that will keep rampant piracy in check. The real problem occurs when the new delivery vehicle is void of such hinderances.
Now we have an issue of people trying to obsficate the concept of stealing by arguing there is nothing to steal - there is no physical entity. You have acknowledged that if the cost of resources is not reimbursed then the creation of new content stops. This is something we both agree on. Yet, you fail to recognize that not everyone is out to be a cultural philanthropist. You extend the concept of lending a book out to be equal with someone giving away 1000 free copies of it. Those are not the same.
To be purposefully blind to the glaring difference between those two examples, and then defend it by claiming that society at large becomes richer is fundamentally incorrect. Society becomes richer because they took the hard work, time, skill, and resources from the individuals who created whatever content is being distributed at no cost. The economics of the situation is that the creator bears all of the burden of increasing society's wealth.
As for my God given rights, I am the creator - so the creation is mine. Why do you think you have some God given right to free access to my creation?
I think its called the Department of Justice for marketing purposes.
True Nissan Skyline GT-Rs
No. It makes ABSOLUTELY ZERO DIFFERENCE to them. The ONLY case where it makes a difference is if the person would otherwise purchase a copy of some of the content copied, and does not purchase said contents because she copied it. This is the ONLY case that matters.
While I can understand, and agree, that this is really the only case that truly matters - there is an aspect of your statement I do not understand.
If a person wouldn't purchase a copy of something because it wasn't important enough to them - why would they then take it if it was "free"? That argument just seems circular to me. I don't want it --> I can obtain it for free --> Since I don't want it, but I can obntain it for free - I am justified in taking it.
If the issue is with the cost, and you if someone doesn't feel that the cost is justified - well that's really too bad. The manufacturer detirmines cost. True, the consumer determines worth or value, but perceived lack of value does not give someone the right to just take something. It may motivate, but not justify.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my statements. I have read your posts and you do acknowledge the freeloaders. I also don't condemn using downloads as a method of "trying before flying."
I understand the freemarket scenario, as I'm a big fan. I also think if you are using this method of getting the content you want because it is the only conduit available to you then you have no other options and are well within a morally acceptable boundry. I don't think this even touches on entitlement, because you don't display that attitude. For you this isn't a "free media for me because I'm entitled" scenario, its a "I have no other option" scenario.
I do not usually think the worst of everyone, but I do take some pretty hardline stances. I replied to your post as a matter of respect, because your statements had well thought out reasoning behind them - but did also happen to be remarkable similar to those who feel they have a right to everything without a cost. It was not clear that my post was not directly aimed at you, but was mocking the general attitude those who feel entitled to free everything.
I don't discuss these matters with the "OMG! EvErY thing should be FR33! Britany Spears suxxorz, but I want her single anywayz!" crowd. I prefer to debate those with a more solid understanding of the matter, with an alternate opinion.
While I may think that technically what you are doing in downloading the music may be illegal (depending on copyrights of the creator and country of origin, blah, blah, blah...), I am not one to think that law = morality. Denying yourself media you desire, that you would happily obtain through more legal channels if it was available, in order to stay compliant with some rules written in a book somewhere is not always reasonable in extreme circumstances.
yeah, but the open source community is maintained by people who fund it through their own "private" funding.
Some devs contribute software they write during their time off from their "paying gig". Some open source teams are funded by private investors who obtained the funds to donate from their employement or profit generating endevors. Others happen to have a consulting business model, and the open source material is actually a form of marketing and placement - not the end product. A single self serving entity won't break this model because funds keep flowing in from the outside. Open source, as a whole, does not generate enough self sustaining revenue. They also don't distribute funds amongst themselves equally.
Now lets take communism, which is the point I was talking to. As a social and economic system - it needs to be self sustaining in order to work. One worker in this system who acts as a drain on resources, instead of as a source of production, will cause a significant reduction in effeciency. Taking the human element into consideration - others will follow that example when they find it is the still returns the same reward for less effort. Then the system crumbles.
Back to open source. OSS doesn't attract people of that mindset, but it also rewards those based on individual effort. If a programmer contributes more often with better material - they are more likely to be picked up by a funded endevor. In a communist system, compensation is based on need - not merit. So there is no motivation to accel in your work other than personal satisfaction.
I refuse to feed the corporate beast that the recording industry represents.
You forgot this part:
"just as long as I am still able to get everything that this beast is feeding up."
If you want it - pay, if not - don't. The "I don't think it's worth the money so I don't pay" stance is pathetic. The legit users of torrent sites are overshadowed by the illegitimate ones. Is it the fault of the tracker sites? No, its the ripper and the encoder. The population at large can't tell the difference.
I also the "try before buy" stance. If you can get a really awesome full featured demo of a dev suite or get a lower res version of a movie to see if its any good before you buy a legit copy - cool. That's generally considered being a smart consumer. But, if you use torrent sites to get free copies of things you can't afford because you want them - well now you're just pawning off your weak economic status onto those who labored to create the item you so covet.
Recognizing it only takes one self interested entity in such a system to break it.
Everyone thinks communism is great as long as they get to be an administrative worker.
I don't see anyone lineing up to be a factory worker. You have to FORCE someone to be a factory worker, they don't want to do for the greater good of all (supposedly). Forced labor will not be as productive as labor from someone who is doing something they want to do. This circumstance occurs across the board in a communist system, and exhibits itself as a slow economic entropy that will ultimately fail under the weight of those who chose to be unproductive because the state pays for everything anyways.
Ignoring the desire people have to be recognized and compensated for individual acheivement is a must have ingredient for flawed economic and social systems.
Perhaps I misunderstood what exactly your point was, which is why I was asking for clarification.
You didn't misunderstand, you attacked my position with purposely obtuse statements in an effort to cover up the fact your position is ridiculously ignorant. I have no urge to calm down. My repeated use of the term Distribution Rights should be ample enough to make my point. I mean, come on - It has a concrete definition. I am in no way obliged to do your thinking for you.
Simple, you say you are allowed to control where something is made available, and I gave an example of making it available.
Are you just referring to which retail outlets are allowed to sell it or something?
Jesus, you haven't made it available, you just brought one instance to a location where it wasn't available. Inside the boundaries of commerce, which is the framework for every discussion of this kind, that is not even relevant. Once again, Distro Rights control retail outlets, but you knew that didn't you. I do not cater to those who purposefully play stupid. If you sell ONE COPY, you haven't exactly made a difference of its availability by a factor anywhere close to noticable. Yay for you and your scemantic argument.
Seeing and showing are two sides of the same coin. You can't see something that ain't shown. If I have something, I can show it to whoever I want and you are irrelevant to that.
Wow, you really don't understand anything about this do you? In your effort to prove your right you have taken your ONE example of a SINGLE INSTANCE and tried to make it relevant to content distribution channels. Once again, probably the most idiotic use of intelligence I have witnessed to date.
If you want to show five friends your copy of Girls Gone Wild while you reside in some far off place where it wasn't available for sale or public viewing, you can - that's called "Fair Use". Either you don't understand the point your trying to defend (Fair Use) or you are purposfully feigning ignorance. Either way, it an embarrasment. If you want to show it at a movie theater or other public venue without permission - you are breaking INTERNATIONAL laws.
Can you get away with it? Sure, on a scale negligible to any metric that matters. But if I create a movie in the US, and I do not give permission for it to be Distributed to Germany, and some German theater chain starts showing it - guess whos getting sued. This isn't an American thing, these are concepts covered by the Berne Convention.
Again, are you just referring to public displays or something?
You can't be this ignorant.
If you're going to use ambiguous terms to make an argument, you might consider not flying off the handle when your statements aren't clear and somebody politely asks for clarification.
The term distribution rights is not ambiguous. It has been nitpicked and dragged through the courts in every country with an established legal system and the capacity for international commerce. It is anything BUT ambiguous. Your ability to comprehend is impared. You never politely asked for clarification, you attacked my opinion with the most absurd and irrelevant examples you could thing of to make an invalid point seem valid.
You stated:"You're arguing that you are allowed to go into any country in the world and take my property away." When in fact I did not. You misinterpeted it, and then on that misinterpretation you made assumption about how the aspect of enforcement would be handled. None of that behavior is worthy of respect. Then you began to attack me personally by stating: In fact, the only thing even related to rights is your assertion that you have more rights in every country in the world than everybody else in the world. That is a pretty incredible leap in logic, and the results were intended to insult on a level that only those of your "superior intellect" would understand. You wanted to use the good
I would say that the problem with fair use is that the laws were all written using the media vehicle's inherent limitations as a way to self regulation.
Media used to be difficult to capture. Sure, you could record a song off the radio or VHS a TV show, but the extent of what you did with that copy was kept in check by the difficulty of propegating those copies.
The cost to reproduce VHS tapes or Cassettes with the intent to sell often required an investment, of time and money, so large that it didn't warrant the effort to make a profit. Those who could, and did, invest those resources - they were so far outside the realm of fair use that it was undeniable.
Now we have digital media. Unlawful reproduction of a work with intent to sell is now really cost effective. Not only that, but lawful reproduction is so effortless that many people have innocently blurred the line between "backup" and "multiple copies distributed at no cost under the scemantics of backup".
Then we have the people who cannot tell the difference between "Theft" and "Copyright Infringement." The lack of physical material being stolen equates to a lack of wrongdoing for these people. The concept that the initial resources used to create the work - time, talent, skill - are not intrinsic to the work without the presence of a physical delivery vehicle. If there is no "thing" then its worth nothing.
Third, we have the big money overstepping their bounds by adding controls to the media to protect their investment. Now, they are in the right to protect their investment - but not at the cost of compromising my rights as a consumer. Limiting how many times I can rip a song is asanine, but it wouldn't have happened if people didn't overstep their bounds under the guise of "fair use."
The only way to fix this problem is to create and embrace a new business model that takes advantage of media's new found freedom without having to rely on its limitations as a way of enforcing the profit mechanism.