That wasn't really my intent. My intent was to point out that it makes sense to at least acknowledge the present when discussing how to promote creation.
The existence of cheap, high fidelity reproductions probably makes it a lot harder for live musicians to work a lot (at least in my opinion, this could probably be argued forever; at a minimum, it raises the expectations of people paying for live music (I don't mean Britney Spears and her CD singalong concerts, I mean that the live show is competing with recordings of other music)). If this is true, it makes sense to reward the creation of recordings in some way, so as to encourage people to do it. That doesn't mean that people wouldn't do it for free, but if there is a simple way to increase the volume or quality of the recordings available, why not do it?
You are misinterpreting what I said. I would risk (i.e., take the chance that nothing happened) money on certain people making a film. Not just some people.
Another reply pointed out that this is problematic, as it is difficult for someone who is unknown to garner enough attention to really even attempt this, so financing with more concentrated risk and decision making is probably necessary for a viable film industry.
Concerts may make music viable without copyright, but that doesn't really say anything about whether musicians benefit from copyright or not (It seems pretty clear to me that right of sale for a short period of time is highly beneficial to artists, with little drain on the commons; short for me means 5 or 10 years).
My point is that technology has fundamentally changed the market place in very recent years, so arguments based on how the market worked prior to that technology don't necessarily apply to today's market.
Copyright exists to promote sharing, not creation. A talented song writer is much more inclined to share his creations in a world where he is able to benefit more from the sharing than others. In a world without copyright, he is quite likely to benefit a lot less than a better funded entity (at least until he manages to establish himself).
Yeah, they clearly spent $100 million on copyright clearances alone for Transformers.
The better argument is that if there is really a market for movies, someone will find a way to finance them, copyright or not (I'd risk a buck on the next Bourne movie, and I bet enough people would join me that it wouldn't be all that hard to put it together).
Lenovo does a decent job of turning out bland looking laptops that at least aren't ugly (the design of this Lenovo 3000 N100 brings 'functional' to my mind, no frills, not much shiny, etc.).
Moving from whatever system is currently being used to a system that uses open formats is invariably going to involve costs. People looking after their pennies are going to stick with what they have, not incur development and training costs.
I was engaged to create content in Word (No, really, the overall process specifically involved using Word), and that content is now being stuffed into a layout system, and the stuffing process is broken, so the layout is broken and no one with any control is doing anything about the systematic problem (from what I can tell, it is all more opaque to me than I would like, but that bridge is behind me)...
Yes please. I am currently at the wrong end of a project that is using Word as the glorified paint that you describe and it would save me untold amounts of grief if I had been able to deliver what I meant, rather than a nice drawing of what I meant. Of course, that part of the discussion was out of my control, and I'm not sure anybody actually involved in making the decision even understands the idea of separating meaning from presentation.
The government already collects more taxes from petroleum products than the oil companies collect profits (Federal gas taxes are 18.4 cents per gallon, state taxes average more than 25 cents per gallon, and any profits that are made selling that gas are also taxed.). So in the U.S., government entities are already taking in 35+ cents per gallon of gasoline sold, compared to the roughly 10 cents that the oil company makes.
The proper response to disgust at the profits that the oil companies are making is, to the extent that you can and care, stop using oil products.
Funding research is a good idea. Improving efficiency of homes is a good idea (better appliances, insulation, ground source heat pumps and regular old air heat pumps where they make sense, etc.).
Even then, near and mid term needs will only be met by expanding coal and/or nuclear.
Given the current power demands of the United States, the choice comes down to coal or nuclear. Conservation might help some, but it probably won't even keep up with population growth.
As far as the thing about the grid, they are talking about the management infrastructure, not the transmission lines themselves.
I don't really have a problem with the community service thing, but using the status quo to justify something doesn't really work very well (we've always just beat women who misbehave, what's the problem?, or whatever).
Your second point is sort of reasonable (though I manage to use quite a lot of software on windows that doesn't crash very often). To your first point, I would argue that the problem is with your Irc software not registering itself (as both Windows and Firefox were able to take advantage of your changes once you had made them). On your third point, my version of XP provides a gui for customizing those settings under Start->Properties|Advanced.
Slashdot Mirror
This is only sort of a problem; it would at least get their attention.
That wasn't really my intent. My intent was to point out that it makes sense to at least acknowledge the present when discussing how to promote creation.
The existence of cheap, high fidelity reproductions probably makes it a lot harder for live musicians to work a lot (at least in my opinion, this could probably be argued forever; at a minimum, it raises the expectations of people paying for live music (I don't mean Britney Spears and her CD singalong concerts, I mean that the live show is competing with recordings of other music)). If this is true, it makes sense to reward the creation of recordings in some way, so as to encourage people to do it. That doesn't mean that people wouldn't do it for free, but if there is a simple way to increase the volume or quality of the recordings available, why not do it?
You are misinterpreting what I said. I would risk (i.e., take the chance that nothing happened) money on certain people making a film. Not just some people.
Another reply pointed out that this is problematic, as it is difficult for someone who is unknown to garner enough attention to really even attempt this, so financing with more concentrated risk and decision making is probably necessary for a viable film industry.
Entitled nutjobs would fantasy that the $4 they spent financing the movie should give them a discount when they go to see it at the local theater.
Yes, they would.
No, they really would.
Quit arguing, I'm quite sure about this.
Concerts may make music viable without copyright, but that doesn't really say anything about whether musicians benefit from copyright or not (It seems pretty clear to me that right of sale for a short period of time is highly beneficial to artists, with little drain on the commons; short for me means 5 or 10 years).
My point is that technology has fundamentally changed the market place in very recent years, so arguments based on how the market worked prior to that technology don't necessarily apply to today's market.
I'll see your "pretty rich musical culture for the several thousands of years" and raise you a "perfect cost free reproduction for about 10 years".
Copyright exists to promote sharing, not creation. A talented song writer is much more inclined to share his creations in a world where he is able to benefit more from the sharing than others. In a world without copyright, he is quite likely to benefit a lot less than a better funded entity (at least until he manages to establish himself).
Yeah, they clearly spent $100 million on copyright clearances alone for Transformers.
The better argument is that if there is really a market for movies, someone will find a way to finance them, copyright or not (I'd risk a buck on the next Bourne movie, and I bet enough people would join me that it wouldn't be all that hard to put it together).
Lenovo does a decent job of turning out bland looking laptops that at least aren't ugly (the design of this Lenovo 3000 N100 brings 'functional' to my mind, no frills, not much shiny, etc.).
What?
Moving from whatever system is currently being used to a system that uses open formats is invariably going to involve costs. People looking after their pennies are going to stick with what they have, not incur development and training costs.
No, to some extent, I'm that jerk.
I was engaged to create content in Word (No, really, the overall process specifically involved using Word), and that content is now being stuffed into a layout system, and the stuffing process is broken, so the layout is broken and no one with any control is doing anything about the systematic problem (from what I can tell, it is all more opaque to me than I would like, but that bridge is behind me)...
Yes please. I am currently at the wrong end of a project that is using Word as the glorified paint that you describe and it would save me untold amounts of grief if I had been able to deliver what I meant, rather than a nice drawing of what I meant. Of course, that part of the discussion was out of my control, and I'm not sure anybody actually involved in making the decision even understands the idea of separating meaning from presentation.
Did not proofread close enough, that should read "the roughly 10 cents that the oil company makes on each dollar."
So the comparison isn't as direct as is implied in my comment. Oops.
The government already collects more taxes from petroleum products than the oil companies collect profits (Federal gas taxes are 18.4 cents per gallon, state taxes average more than 25 cents per gallon, and any profits that are made selling that gas are also taxed.). So in the U.S., government entities are already taking in 35+ cents per gallon of gasoline sold, compared to the roughly 10 cents that the oil company makes.
The proper response to disgust at the profits that the oil companies are making is, to the extent that you can and care, stop using oil products.
Funding research is a good idea. Improving efficiency of homes is a good idea (better appliances, insulation, ground source heat pumps and regular old air heat pumps where they make sense, etc.).
Even then, near and mid term needs will only be met by expanding coal and/or nuclear.
Given the current power demands of the United States, the choice comes down to coal or nuclear. Conservation might help some, but it probably won't even keep up with population growth.
As far as the thing about the grid, they are talking about the management infrastructure, not the transmission lines themselves.
94% is too high, people will either spend $93 hiding $7, or simply not do that work.
I don't really have a problem with the community service thing, but using the status quo to justify something doesn't really work very well (we've always just beat women who misbehave, what's the problem?, or whatever).
You read that wrong. There is a (against their will) implied in there.
Why is the field limited to people in their right minds? I would expect that a lot of their customers would be other diseased drug addicts.
Your injecting the assumption that all johns would automatically be in prison indicates that you aren't interested in a serious conversation.
You should just put a big sticker on any computer that can connect to the internet that says "NSFW".
Please confine your histrionic wailing about the ills of society to stories involving your home country.
Thanks.
Your second point is sort of reasonable (though I manage to use quite a lot of software on windows that doesn't crash very often). To your first point, I would argue that the problem is with your Irc software not registering itself (as both Windows and Firefox were able to take advantage of your changes once you had made them). On your third point, my version of XP provides a gui for customizing those settings under Start->Properties|Advanced.