The market is fantastic at setting a fair price for a physical good that by necessity is scarce.
No no they are not. They are only "fantastic" in the extreme short term. The markets have no concept of time or foresight.
It is assumed that people in the market would act thinking of the whole's long term needs. However there are many instances where the individual can benefit by leaving long term costs for others to bear. When everyone acts in accordance to their best interests then they leave those long term costs which can be left for others to pay to someone else and in the end those costs go unpaid.
In short the free-market capitalist model of economics is as flawed as communism and others that came before them.
The MPAA and RIAA consider ALL music you get to be rented to be listened to or played or used at their concent only and they have(especially the latter) have raised a large PR campaign to make the general public think this is the case as well.
In fact with copyright it is the other way round. It is the creator/holder who has the temporary right to demand payment for their work being reproduced and distributed. The information is the property of the public and as an incentive to produce more copyright is provided to the creators so that they can profit from their work.
Please be angry about how copyright has been abused but please also realize that there are people who use it fairly and who really do need it to make their living AND who really do provide a benefit to us all.
By definition, any mechanism applied to music that does not reduce functionality of the product is NOT DRM.
Who's definition is that?
Digital Rights Management doesn't seem to imply in its name any reduction in functionality. You are always right if you live in a world of your own definitions; you just might not be able to live their your whole life.
Well if all DRM was of the very mild variety I wouldn't have any problems with it.
Mild DRM such as watermarking and such which doesn't actually reduce the functionality of the product can help deter most who would casually infringe and if handled properly could build a reputation that the industry has ways of figuring out who really bought what (even if they have to tell us in the fine print that the drm is there and yes we all know it can be removed). However that isn't enough for many in the industry so they go for strong drm, drm that doesn't seek to build a reputation but rather tries to force compliance and be as its proponents claim unbreakable; even though it is every bit as bi-passable as its weaker counterpart to those who would criminally break copyright laws.
It all boils down to the enforcement and practice of copyright laws has become unjust because non-governmental agencies like the RIAA have taken upon themselves governmental powers and the law has been stretched to cover such extreme lengths of time.
Don't rage against the concept of copyright, it is sound. Rage against its abuse in the law and commercial enterprise.
I say we need to get to something like 25 years from publishing date with 25 years additional after registration(must be completed before the first 25 expires w/no exceptions) and the registration process should involve submitting a copy to a national or state copyright library and should be payed for by the holder(the first 25 are free).
Please. It has pretty much always been like this. The more brains you have on a project generally means the faster it gets done(note I did say Generally).
Even many of our great inventors are often given credit as individuals when really they were working as heads of larger teams. Edison comes to mind. And while we contribute relativity to Einstein it was large teams of people that actually got nuclear power working and confirmed his ideas. Darwin nearly got scooped by another man for natural selection(or natural preservation as he(Darwin) would have preferred), even if the other guy hadn't done his work nearly as throughly.
In the end while there are often genius individuals none of them work in a vacuum and there are often many people around them working towards similar ends.
It isn't the artists who have been pushing for the extensions it is the people profiting from the production of the art. In the majority of cases these are NOT the same people.
Copyright in its basic form is tennable and just. However the problem is that it has been grossly abused.
It should only cover a number of years after publication, not after the authors/owner's death. It should be a temporary right to allow the creators of intellectual works to be able to profit and have some control over their creations. However it also should only be temporary, which in current legal code it has been increasingly moved to the indefinite.
The other problem I see is that the term property is used to describe intellectual works. These things are not property. Copyright is treated as property law now in the political sphere but it shouldn't be.
In the end it stems into the greater issue of injustice in this nation that the law, especially civil law, only applies its benefits to those who can afford it while the penalties apply equally.
Well you also have to remember that "Economy of Scale" really is just a reference to many production and cost improvements that often(but not always) occur as the quantity of production is ramped up.
It is a general rule of thumb that can be used to explain why something on a large scale is more economic but cannot be used to show that a large scale operation is more economic(it isn't a proof of economy, only an explanation for it).
The problem I really have with the RIAA and music taxes is that they are the middle men and they are private entities in charge of taxation.
They do not answer to the public or even the people who they are supposed to protect. They are in it to make a profit for themselves with government sanctioned rights to collect and operate in ways no other private corporation or individual can.
If it comes down to a music tax I'd rather see the IRS do it. Taxation should be only be done by a government on those who have representation in that government.
No no it'll happen. Of course there will be a sign-up fee(your songs will not be counted untill you sign up), and a fee for mailing and processing once you have met the minimum requirement for sending out a check. Oh and of course a percentage will be taken for their hard work (will over 50).
Just look at the fair recording and reimbursement schemes they have put out for streaming radio.
Not terrorism. "Terrorism" is piled on to too many things these days and like "war" has lost its meaning.
Though the idea of making those that get caught pay/be punished in accordance with the criticality of what they stole from should be.
Though the real problem will be as long as copper is expensive relative to the ease at which it can be obtained legally it will be stolen. The only real way to change this is to either make copper less expensive or to make it less easy to steal.
The first option isn't really available. The second in many cases involves infringing upon civil liberties.
Slashdot Mirror
Israelis stole, or at least one can make a logically sound and reasonable argument that Israelis and other western powers did indeed steal that land.
The market is fantastic at setting a fair price for a physical good that by necessity is scarce.
No no they are not. They are only "fantastic" in the extreme short term. The markets have no concept of time or foresight.
It is assumed that people in the market would act thinking of the whole's long term needs. However there are many instances where the individual can benefit by leaving long term costs for others to bear. When everyone acts in accordance to their best interests then they leave those long term costs which can be left for others to pay to someone else and in the end those costs go unpaid.
In short the free-market capitalist model of economics is as flawed as communism and others that came before them.
Yes, but a copyright is a monopoly. Most monopoly holders milk it for all it's worth, to the detriment of everyone.
That is why it should only be temporary and limited, the current situation has moved towards being neither temporary nor limited.
Oh one more thing.
The MPAA and RIAA consider ALL music you get to be rented to be listened to or played or used at their concent only and they have(especially the latter) have raised a large PR campaign to make the general public think this is the case as well.
In fact with copyright it is the other way round. It is the creator/holder who has the temporary right to demand payment for their work being reproduced and distributed. The information is the property of the public and as an incentive to produce more copyright is provided to the creators so that they can profit from their work.
Please be angry about how copyright has been abused but please also realize that there are people who use it fairly and who really do need it to make their living AND who really do provide a benefit to us all.
By definition, any mechanism applied to music that does not reduce functionality of the product is NOT DRM.
Who's definition is that?
Digital Rights Management doesn't seem to imply in its name any reduction in functionality. You are always right if you live in a world of your own definitions; you just might not be able to live their your whole life.
Give the market a few years and the cost of the fossil fuels will make the stocking worth it.
Well if all DRM was of the very mild variety I wouldn't have any problems with it.
Mild DRM such as watermarking and such which doesn't actually reduce the functionality of the product can help deter most who would casually infringe and if handled properly could build a reputation that the industry has ways of figuring out who really bought what (even if they have to tell us in the fine print that the drm is there and yes we all know it can be removed). However that isn't enough for many in the industry so they go for strong drm, drm that doesn't seek to build a reputation but rather tries to force compliance and be as its proponents claim unbreakable; even though it is every bit as bi-passable as its weaker counterpart to those who would criminally break copyright laws.
It all boils down to the enforcement and practice of copyright laws has become unjust because non-governmental agencies like the RIAA have taken upon themselves governmental powers and the law has been stretched to cover such extreme lengths of time.
Don't rage against the concept of copyright, it is sound. Rage against its abuse in the law and commercial enterprise.
I say we need to get to something like 25 years from publishing date with 25 years additional after registration(must be completed before the first 25 expires w/no exceptions) and the registration process should involve submitting a copy to a national or state copyright library and should be payed for by the holder(the first 25 are free).
They all have exhaust ports. That's how they moved the earth and prevented Agnu from being sold.
In fact XFCE has an entire Unbuntu distro shown prominently on their site as an alternate to the standard version.
There again I suppose actually looking at the website and what you are downloading is too much research.
*continues to brandish herbs and a bar of soap at grandparent*
Granted with Ubuntu you have to go beyond the 6 buttons to install w/o all the extra stuff, but please it isn't a m.t-c.r.s.i.p.t-a-e.f.r.l.r.o.u.s.
In otherwords,
*holds up bundle of troll-repellent herbs*
BACK! foul creature! BACK!
I think someone is forgetting Balmer's law.
Three can keep a secret if two are dead.
Franklin, go Ben!
It does have its flaws, but how institutionalized would kids be without it? How institutionalized is factory labor and working at a single job?
Public eduction does have room for improvement but that doesn't mean that it wasn't and still is a step in the right direction.
Please. It has pretty much always been like this. The more brains you have on a project generally means the faster it gets done(note I did say Generally).
Even many of our great inventors are often given credit as individuals when really they were working as heads of larger teams. Edison comes to mind. And while we contribute relativity to Einstein it was large teams of people that actually got nuclear power working and confirmed his ideas. Darwin nearly got scooped by another man for natural selection(or natural preservation as he(Darwin) would have preferred), even if the other guy hadn't done his work nearly as throughly.
In the end while there are often genius individuals none of them work in a vacuum and there are often many people around them working towards similar ends.
Look up who has pushed the copyright extension laws. You'll find that it was NOT the artists but rather those who mass-produced the art.
Copyright is just IF AND ONLY IF it is temporary. In other words if an only if the power is limited to a point where corruption cannot set in.
It isn't the artists who have been pushing for the extensions it is the people profiting from the production of the art. In the majority of cases these are NOT the same people.
Copyright in its basic form is tennable and just. However the problem is that it has been grossly abused.
It should only cover a number of years after publication, not after the authors/owner's death. It should be a temporary right to allow the creators of intellectual works to be able to profit and have some control over their creations. However it also should only be temporary, which in current legal code it has been increasingly moved to the indefinite.
The other problem I see is that the term property is used to describe intellectual works. These things are not property. Copyright is treated as property law now in the political sphere but it shouldn't be.
In the end it stems into the greater issue of injustice in this nation that the law, especially civil law, only applies its benefits to those who can afford it while the penalties apply equally.
Do you know how much that costs?
They can take such counter suits as the cost of doing business. Your average victim takes those as loss of livelyhood.
No it is standard user behavior at least for most of the internet, but it is changing.
Well you also have to remember that "Economy of Scale" really is just a reference to many production and cost improvements that often(but not always) occur as the quantity of production is ramped up.
It is a general rule of thumb that can be used to explain why something on a large scale is more economic but cannot be used to show that a large scale operation is more economic(it isn't a proof of economy, only an explanation for it).
The problem I really have with the RIAA and music taxes is that they are the middle men and they are private entities in charge of taxation.
They do not answer to the public or even the people who they are supposed to protect. They are in it to make a profit for themselves with government sanctioned rights to collect and operate in ways no other private corporation or individual can.
If it comes down to a music tax I'd rather see the IRS do it. Taxation should be only be done by a government on those who have representation in that government.
The RIAA is taxation w/o representation!
No no it'll happen. Of course there will be a sign-up fee(your songs will not be counted untill you sign up), and a fee for mailing and processing once you have met the minimum requirement for sending out a check. Oh and of course a percentage will be taken for their hard work (will over 50).
Just look at the fair recording and reimbursement schemes they have put out for streaming radio.
His heart implant is failing hand me a vibrator stat!
Not terrorism. "Terrorism" is piled on to too many things these days and like "war" has lost its meaning.
Though the idea of making those that get caught pay/be punished in accordance with the criticality of what they stole from should be.
Though the real problem will be as long as copper is expensive relative to the ease at which it can be obtained legally it will be stolen. The only real way to change this is to either make copper less expensive or to make it less easy to steal.
The first option isn't really available. The second in many cases involves infringing upon civil liberties.
Right. And there is no way today you'll get a pawn shop to buy something that might be stolen.