At least you can buy shirts in your size like that. I've been looking the last two hours and can't find anything smaller than a Large.
Guess it's some white paint and stencils for me. At least they'll be one of a kind.:)
Re:Online intellectual property piracy is a fallac
on
Free Books Online
·
· Score: 2
How horrible your life must have been without "libraries" or "record stores" in your town, so that you had to
turn to the web before you could read a book before purchasing it or sample a CD before buying it.
You're ignoring the fact that libraries and record stores are only filled with the products put out by the same companies which are fighting mp3s/ebooks. He had to turn to the web because he was sick of all the substandard material being produced by the major record companies and publishing houses.
In addition I have been reading alot of literature lately, which for either popularity or political reasons isn't readily available in the states. I have to read it online or go to certain lengths to get it. Other examples might be people who are not near a library or one of the record stores which allow you to listen to music before you buy it. Some of us have to walk in the snow or ride a bus if we want to go somewhere. We're not all priveledged enough to have a car, or tastes and interests that are convieniently in the majority, like you apparently are.
Re:Online intellectual property piracy is a fallac
on
Free Books Online
·
· Score: 1
I agree with you...I don't see why people are so scared. (Well, I do, but I'll get there.)
Is this really that big of a deal?
I've watched alot of people arguing over mp3s in the last several months. At the peak of my CD buying days I had about 200 or more. Now I'm down to about 50, which are the CDs that are of such quality that I haven't grown tired of listening to them in years. CDs I bought for one song, or as an impulse, or that I ended up not liking as much as I thought I would, have all been sold off. I download mp3s at a rate of maybe 10/week. I download an mp3 for one of three purposes:
I only want/like one or two songs by that artist, and so buying the CD is a waste.
It's something rare/foreign that I could not get affordably or at all in North America.
It's a new [to me] band and I'm deciding how much I like them, at which point I would purchase a physical version of the music, for one main reason:
I feel that the CD is worth my money, which I had to earn, and have very little of to spare.
You can substitute any media you want in the above example, really. The simple fact is that even with the spreading of portable mp3 players, the sound quality is not as good as the CD and most people will not want to be so dependent on their computers. So you can get a book online for free, so what? Very few people will want to read anything of that great a length online. Even those who pay in paper and printer ink to make a physical copy will then be stuck with a big stack of papers that won't sit neatly on a bookshelf or be particularly easy to read. One thing I never hear people mention is art. I'm a visual artist, and this seems signifigant to me. You can type in a famous artist's name and pull up a number of scans of an artwork on any search engine. You can print them out and hang them on your wall, or even print them on t-shirts. Are the galleries and poster companies throwing temper-tantrums over this? I certainly haven't heard anything. People still pay art museums and poster companies for the work in question. In fact, they may see something they like and then go to a museum they might otherwise have never visited. I don't see how books or music are any different. There's not a whole lot of pleasure in sitting in a sunny window reading a computer monitor, and you certainly don't want to be carrying a loose stack of papers on an airplane, train, or sit with it under a tree. And I don't know about you, but when I'm listening to Beethoven's 9th, I want it to sound like I am *there*, in the highest quality CD sound possible.
I think the real issue here is that companies are afraid that now they will actually have to produce material WORTH what they charge you for it. If I want to hear an original, interesting song and all the music companies want to offer me is people squeaking "Happy Birthday" on cheap kazoos, should I be expected to buy it? Before mp3, the music companies could push whatever they wanted and people would buy it because they didn't know better. Now anyone with a band can record a song and distribute it. The solution is for the record companies to strive to produce higher quality, better-sound CDs, and music that doesn't suck. I think the only thing keeping them in business now are the radio stations (to which there are online alternatives, even) and MTV. It's easier to try to eliminate/control the competition than cut into profits to produce a higher quality product.
The publishers may be afraid of e-books or piracy, but they really have no reason to be. They simply need to learn from the music industry's mistakes. Concentrate on higher-quality products, more variety, and reasonable prices. The record companies aren't losing any money on me -- when it costs more to buy one CD than it does to pay for my electric bill, ISP, or a week's worth of groceries, you can guess which comes first. Billy Joe Bubble Gum Synth Pop who gets 75% of the radio/MTV playtime is not worth that kind of money. And for the GOOD musicians/authors/artists -- I also would like to see more of them inventing ways to cut out the middle men so that I can reward and thank them for the work they create without having most of my money go to someone else.
First of all, anyone who deludes themselves into thinking that the government operates seperately from the corporate world is in for a rude awakening. At one point they may have been seperate entities, but that day passed long, long ago. In the current capitalist system, the only controlling factor involved anywhere is money, and until radical changes are made you will not see anything different. The entire country is run by the power of the almighty dollar, and the only goal is to turn a profit. Politicians are just puppets of the corporations and lobbyists; any actions they make against the corporate world are either one of two things: whichever special interest group isn't paying them off at the moment, or a superficial act to garner public support that does no real harm to the company involved. Politicians do not really fear public retribution. They already control far too much of how the general public thinks, as do the corporations.
How many times have you heard people lament having only two political candidates to choose from, or claiming that there is no way for a third party to get into office? This is because the media controls the television and newspapers, which are still the main sources of information for most people. They are secure in their arrangement. Third party candidates and opposing political ideas upset their positions of power and wealth, so they make them non-existent by denying them a spot in national attention. They literally decide who wins and loses elections. More and more, the television will start to tell you who to vote for, and from there the media seeks to control every aspect of your life they can get their hands on. It is how they make money. It is their instinct to survive, and nothing will change that short of their demise.
The internet threatens all this. As it becomes more and more influential and integrated into people's daily lives, new ideas and the potential for them to reach others will increase. People like Ralph Nadar, Harry Browne, and even more extreme groups will be able to get an audience. They will start winning votes. Politicians the corporations can't control may come to power. They may even threaten to destroy the capitalist system and government itself.
The corpo-government's only response to this, if it wants to survive, is to attempt to regulate and control that which threatens it. The problem here is that people fail to realize that any regulation is bad regulation. If the government is allowed to gain control over the net, it will just eventually be turned into an interactive television. Information needs to be free. People need to be able to judge for themselves what is true or not. Never trust the government. It cannot and will never act in your best interests. It will act only in whatever way furthers its chance of survival. The second you begin using the government as your deciding factor in what is truth or not, it will only be a short road until they have everyone brainwashed into believing whatever they want you to think. It will be a short road to Big Brother.
You don't need the government to tell you what is truth or not. We are all intelligent people. We can use discretion and think for ourselves. We can decide what is fact.
There is no problem with 'information poisoning' here. There is only a problem with a group of people in power wanting to scare you into no longer thinking for yourself, so they can do it for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Please do me a favour and stay off my homepage.
At least you can buy shirts in your size like that. I've been looking the last two hours and can't find anything smaller than a Large.
Guess it's some white paint and stencils for me. At least they'll be one of a kind. :)
How horrible your life must have been without "libraries" or "record stores" in your town, so that you had to turn to the web before you could read a book before purchasing it or sample a CD before buying it.
You're ignoring the fact that libraries and record stores are only filled with the products put out by the same companies which are fighting mp3s/ebooks. He had to turn to the web because he was sick of all the substandard material being produced by the major record companies and publishing houses.
In addition I have been reading alot of literature lately, which for either popularity or political reasons isn't readily available in the states. I have to read it online or go to certain lengths to get it. Other examples might be people who are not near a library or one of the record stores which allow you to listen to music before you buy it. Some of us have to walk in the snow or ride a bus if we want to go somewhere. We're not all priveledged enough to have a car, or tastes and interests that are convieniently in the majority, like you apparently are.
I agree with you...I don't see why people are so scared. (Well, I do, but I'll get there.)
Is this really that big of a deal?
I've watched alot of people arguing over mp3s in the last several months. At the peak of my CD buying days I had about 200 or more. Now I'm down to about 50, which are the CDs that are of such quality that I haven't grown tired of listening to them in years. CDs I bought for one song, or as an impulse, or that I ended up not liking as much as I thought I would, have all been sold off. I download mp3s at a rate of maybe 10/week. I download an mp3 for one of three purposes:
I feel that the CD is worth my money, which I had to earn, and have very little of to spare.
You can substitute any media you want in the above example, really. The simple fact is that even with the spreading of portable mp3 players, the sound quality is not as good as the CD and most people will not want to be so dependent on their computers. So you can get a book online for free, so what? Very few people will want to read anything of that great a length online. Even those who pay in paper and printer ink to make a physical copy will then be stuck with a big stack of papers that won't sit neatly on a bookshelf or be particularly easy to read. One thing I never hear people mention is art. I'm a visual artist, and this seems signifigant to me. You can type in a famous artist's name and pull up a number of scans of an artwork on any search engine. You can print them out and hang them on your wall, or even print them on t-shirts. Are the galleries and poster companies throwing temper-tantrums over this? I certainly haven't heard anything. People still pay art museums and poster companies for the work in question. In fact, they may see something they like and then go to a museum they might otherwise have never visited. I don't see how books or music are any different. There's not a whole lot of pleasure in sitting in a sunny window reading a computer monitor, and you certainly don't want to be carrying a loose stack of papers on an airplane, train, or sit with it under a tree. And I don't know about you, but when I'm listening to Beethoven's 9th, I want it to sound like I am *there*, in the highest quality CD sound possible.
I think the real issue here is that companies are afraid that now they will actually have to produce material WORTH what they charge you for it. If I want to hear an original, interesting song and all the music companies want to offer me is people squeaking "Happy Birthday" on cheap kazoos, should I be expected to buy it? Before mp3, the music companies could push whatever they wanted and people would buy it because they didn't know better. Now anyone with a band can record a song and distribute it. The solution is for the record companies to strive to produce higher quality, better-sound CDs, and music that doesn't suck. I think the only thing keeping them in business now are the radio stations (to which there are online alternatives, even) and MTV. It's easier to try to eliminate/control the competition than cut into profits to produce a higher quality product.
The publishers may be afraid of e-books or piracy, but they really have no reason to be. They simply need to learn from the music industry's mistakes. Concentrate on higher-quality products, more variety, and reasonable prices. The record companies aren't losing any money on me -- when it costs more to buy one CD than it does to pay for my electric bill, ISP, or a week's worth of groceries, you can guess which comes first. Billy Joe Bubble Gum Synth Pop who gets 75% of the radio/MTV playtime is not worth that kind of money. And for the GOOD musicians/authors/artists -- I also would like to see more of them inventing ways to cut out the middle men so that I can reward and thank them for the work they create without having most of my money go to someone else.
First of all, anyone who deludes themselves into thinking that the government operates seperately from the corporate world is in for a rude awakening. At one point they may have been seperate entities, but that day passed long, long ago. In the current capitalist system, the only controlling factor involved anywhere is money, and until radical changes are made you will not see anything different. The entire country is run by the power of the almighty dollar, and the only goal is to turn a profit. Politicians are just puppets of the corporations and lobbyists; any actions they make against the corporate world are either one of two things: whichever special interest group isn't paying them off at the moment, or a superficial act to garner public support that does no real harm to the company involved. Politicians do not really fear public retribution. They already control far too much of how the general public thinks, as do the corporations.
How many times have you heard people lament having only two political candidates to choose from, or claiming that there is no way for a third party to get into office? This is because the media controls the television and newspapers, which are still the main sources of information for most people. They are secure in their arrangement. Third party candidates and opposing political ideas upset their positions of power and wealth, so they make them non-existent by denying them a spot in national attention. They literally decide who wins and loses elections. More and more, the television will start to tell you who to vote for, and from there the media seeks to control every aspect of your life they can get their hands on. It is how they make money. It is their instinct to survive, and nothing will change that short of their demise.
The internet threatens all this. As it becomes more and more influential and integrated into people's daily lives, new ideas and the potential for them to reach others will increase. People like Ralph Nadar, Harry Browne, and even more extreme groups will be able to get an audience. They will start winning votes. Politicians the corporations can't control may come to power. They may even threaten to destroy the capitalist system and government itself.
The corpo-government's only response to this, if it wants to survive, is to attempt to regulate and control that which threatens it. The problem here is that people fail to realize that any regulation is bad regulation. If the government is allowed to gain control over the net, it will just eventually be turned into an interactive television. Information needs to be free. People need to be able to judge for themselves what is true or not. Never trust the government. It cannot and will never act in your best interests. It will act only in whatever way furthers its chance of survival. The second you begin using the government as your deciding factor in what is truth or not, it will only be a short road until they have everyone brainwashed into believing whatever they want you to think. It will be a short road to Big Brother.
You don't need the government to tell you what is truth or not. We are all intelligent people. We can use discretion and think for ourselves. We can decide what is fact.
There is no problem with 'information poisoning' here. There is only a problem with a group of people in power wanting to scare you into no longer thinking for yourself, so they can do it for you.
Think people, think.