How about making the customers happy? Personally, I can't believe that 1 out of 5 CDs are sold in Walmarts. I can't stand their stores. I absolutely DREAD entering one. They aren't clean, they aren't friendly after you pass the greeter, and they aren't someplace that I want to shop for music as it's just usually a mess and full of people.
Making the customer happy? Wal-Mart is their customer. You would be Wal-Mart's customer.
And if you don't like Wal-Mart, don't shop there. Your personal experience isn't exactly scientific proof that Wal-Mart sucks, there are plenty of people (myself included) that shop there because the employees on the whole are friendly and because their prices are incredible.
Why not concentrate on making music available for less money somewhere that I might want to buy it instead of worrying about making sure Walmart is happy.
Because they have a responsibility as a company to maximize their profits. So does Wal-Mart. Why should they make it available for less money if they can charge more and you'll still pay for it? Do you know anything about business?
I was at Walmart recently buying something I couldn't find at Target. I happened to stop into the electronics section while my fiancé did some shopping elsewhere. Perhaps I wasn't looking in the right spots but I wasn't finding anything by developing and independent artists. If anything it was most older music that wasn't exactly getting radio play. I saw the typical teenybopper crap but nothing that I would consider new and exciting.
Do you ever consider anyone else's point of view? Reading through all of your comments, all I see is that they are all super-biased and don't actually involve any rational thought. You are a selfish, elitist prick. Just because you don't like the music being sold at Wal-Mart doesn't mean that it sucks. There are plenty of people buying those discs (or Wal-Mart wouldn't stock them!), so maybe you should think about that for a minute.
Most independent stores I have gone to shop for music in are charing $16+ for a CD. If you're buying it for $12 and making $4+ a CD I seriously believe that you are gouging us. I don't feel bad for you....and who made you buy the CD? If you don't like the price, don't buy it. No one has a gun to your head, and you certainly don't need a CD to survive.
Honestly, YES. If you're going on a public network with your machine, it's your responsibility to make sure that the machine isn't going to cause problems for other people.
Hmm. To me, that is like saying it's OK for someone to drive their car on a public street, even though they can't afford to purchase brake pads when theirs are clearly worn through -- it's absolutely silly.
You know, all of your bitching about the stifling of innovation would be a lot more effective if you had some actual fact to stand on. New technologies are constantly being introduced to the market. How fast is your computer now? How fast was it 5 years ago? How much more economical are cars than they were 5 years ago?
a) People that are old enough to be grandmothers are old enough to know that copyright infringement is illegal b) If your 12-year-old is pirating music, you aren't doing a good job as a parent and the lesson will be taught one way or another c) I'm sure most of the people named in the lawsuits are neither grandmothers nor underage, and you are just blowing things out of proportion.
The headline is misleading, and puts an obviously pro-filesharing (pro-piracy?) spin on the whole thing.
It's like if someone was getting mauled by a dog, and another person ran over and killed the dog to save the person, and the headline ran: Man Beats Puppy To Death
On the other hand the fact that governments seem to be jailing and bankrupting people in order to protect idea monopolist's profits and in spite of 300 year old copyright law that does not work in the digital age seems to be the type of law people should be objecting to and resisting.
Your whole argument fails because YOU CAN GET MUSIC, FOR FREE, LEGALLY. You can even buy legal recordings from non-RIAA sources. You have alternatives. If you don't like the music that is available for free, or outside of RIAA, well tough shit -- it's art, it's not something that you need to survive. Artists, and the people that distribute art, can charge WHATEVER THEY WANT. If you don't like it, don't pay it, but you are NOT entitled to own a copy for free if they aren't giving it away.
If you wrote music for a living and people were pirating your music, you wouldn't be upset that you were losing money?
Is your AC post helping pollution or children dying in Africa or something? And this is important -- just because it doesn't involve people dying doesn't mean it's suddenly OK to rip people off.
So anything you've ever said or done is the property of all humanity.
So if I videotaped you masturbating and decided to give a copy of that video to everyone in the world, that is the property of all humanity, and surely there is nothing wrong with that.
You are arguing semantics, and completely ignoring the fact that THE INFORMATION is what is being offered for sale, not the medium.
Futhermore, you clearly have something that you did not have before, and have not rendered payment in return for the information. You have entered into an uneven, unwilling transaction with the person who has the rights to distribute the material as they see fit.
Could you give us some citations? While you're heart-wrenching stories do bring a tear to the eye, they sound -- for the most part -- like bleeding-heart bullshit, designed to make us think that our government is an evil force (rolls eyes.)
Pasting one or two stories doesn't count. With all of that well-written rhetoric, surely there must be some meat to this main-course of pain.
Citation? Without citing evidence, all you are doing is pulling numbers out of your ass.
And I don't see you arguing with me about pedophiles or terrorism. I assume you conceding those points? Though I think a written concession is in order.
First of all, this issue is important to some people. If it's not important to you, why are you even arguing about it? YOU ARE INSISTING ON ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT YOU CONSIDER TRIVIAL. At least I consider it important! What the hell is wrong with you?
Furthermore, the DoJ spends its resources on lots of things. If we took your argument and applied it to medical science, you'd be saying ALL of our money on cancer and AIDS, and not on Alzheimer's or Parkinson's because hey, they don't actually kill anybody. That position, frankly, is idiotic.
And lest I let it slide -- Bush is in office so EVERYTHING is awful! The schools magically started to SUCK for the past four years now that BUSH is in office! You are SO FUNNY! It's just like 4 years ago when we had morons blaming Clinton for EVERYTHING being SO AWFUL!!! Really. You. Are. Too. Much.
Running wild and unchecked, indeed. Just because they don't post stories about terrorism arrests, pedophile arrests, and identity theft arrests on Slashdot doesn't mean they aren't going on.
News flash: you don't have to be convicted of a crime to have evidence seized. If someone steals your wallet and the cops catch the guy, guess what -- you don't get your wallet back! IT'S EVIDENCE. Once the court case is over and the appeals process has run its course, THEN you get your wallet back. DUH.
So it seems like you are over-reacting to something that in all likelihood went down like this: * Someone saw that those 5 people were offering all kinds of copyrighted things up for free (illegal) * Someone decided to call the cops on them * The cops saw that they were offering all kinds of copyrighted things up for free * The cops came in and seized the evidence
So, explain to us all how that scenario wouldn't be "just cause", and explain to us all how ANYONE is acting like thugs?
Why do you have to take something when you're not willing to pay the price? If someone charges you $10 for a milkshake, you don't have the right to take the milkshake because the price is too high.
People that are taking things without paying for them deserve to be prosecuted, end of story.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, cuz as everyone knows, your opinion is the only one that matters. Snoop Dogg sucks because you said so.
Hardly, there is no economic damage being done in this case.
Sigh... here we go:
...and who made you buy the CD? If you don't like the price, don't buy it. No one has a gun to your head, and you certainly don't need a CD to survive.
How about making the customers happy? Personally, I can't believe that 1 out of 5 CDs are sold in Walmarts. I can't stand their stores. I absolutely DREAD entering one. They aren't clean, they aren't friendly after you pass the greeter, and they aren't someplace that I want to shop for music as it's just usually a mess and full of people.
Making the customer happy? Wal-Mart is their customer. You would be Wal-Mart's customer.
And if you don't like Wal-Mart, don't shop there. Your personal experience isn't exactly scientific proof that Wal-Mart sucks, there are plenty of people (myself included) that shop there because the employees on the whole are friendly and because their prices are incredible.
Why not concentrate on making music available for less money somewhere that I might want to buy it instead of worrying about making sure Walmart is happy.
Because they have a responsibility as a company to maximize their profits. So does Wal-Mart. Why should they make it available for less money if they can charge more and you'll still pay for it? Do you know anything about business?
I was at Walmart recently buying something I couldn't find at Target. I happened to stop into the electronics section while my fiancé did some shopping elsewhere. Perhaps I wasn't looking in the right spots but I wasn't finding anything by developing and independent artists. If anything it was most older music that wasn't exactly getting radio play. I saw the typical teenybopper crap but nothing that I would consider new and exciting.
Do you ever consider anyone else's point of view? Reading through all of your comments, all I see is that they are all super-biased and don't actually involve any rational thought. You are a selfish, elitist prick. Just because you don't like the music being sold at Wal-Mart doesn't mean that it sucks. There are plenty of people buying those discs (or Wal-Mart wouldn't stock them!), so maybe you should think about that for a minute.
Most independent stores I have gone to shop for music in are charing $16+ for a CD. If you're buying it for $12 and making $4+ a CD I seriously believe that you are gouging us. I don't feel bad for you.
Honestly, YES. If you're going on a public network with your machine, it's your responsibility to make sure that the machine isn't going to cause problems for other people.
Hmm. To me, that is like saying it's OK for someone to drive their car on a public street, even though they can't afford to purchase brake pads when theirs are clearly worn through -- it's absolutely silly.
"and the stupid ActiveX"
XP SP2 addressed this.
You know, all of your bitching about the stifling of innovation would be a lot more effective if you had some actual fact to stand on. New technologies are constantly being introduced to the market. How fast is your computer now? How fast was it 5 years ago? How much more economical are cars than they were 5 years ago?
And so on.
You need all different types of cells to exist.
Obviously blood cells and brain cells are good.
Cancer cells are bad.
So you get rid of the cancer cells.
People that are pirating music and not paying for it are obviously not HELPING RIAA, and are not contributing to its survival. They are cancer cells.
Therefore, RIAA goes after the cancer cells.
You know why RIAA hasn't gone and sued me? Because I don't pirate music, I pay for my CD's.
Isn't that odd?
If you don't like the price of something, then don't buy it -- you don't have any right to take it for free.
Taking something offered for sale without rendering payment is UNJUST.
a) People that are old enough to be grandmothers are old enough to know that copyright infringement is illegal
b) If your 12-year-old is pirating music, you aren't doing a good job as a parent and the lesson will be taught one way or another
c) I'm sure most of the people named in the lawsuits are neither grandmothers nor underage, and you are just blowing things out of proportion.
The headline is misleading, and puts an obviously pro-filesharing (pro-piracy?) spin on the whole thing.
It's like if someone was getting mauled by a dog, and another person ran over and killed the dog to save the person, and the headline ran: Man Beats Puppy To Death
A bit misleading, no?
On the other hand the fact that governments seem to be jailing and bankrupting people in order to protect idea monopolist's profits and in spite of 300 year old copyright law that does not work in the digital age seems to be the type of law people should be objecting to and resisting.
Your whole argument fails because YOU CAN GET MUSIC, FOR FREE, LEGALLY. You can even buy legal recordings from non-RIAA sources. You have alternatives. If you don't like the music that is available for free, or outside of RIAA, well tough shit -- it's art, it's not something that you need to survive. Artists, and the people that distribute art, can charge WHATEVER THEY WANT. If you don't like it, don't pay it, but you are NOT entitled to own a copy for free if they aren't giving it away.
If you wrote music for a living and people were pirating your music, you wouldn't be upset that you were losing money?
Is your AC post helping pollution or children dying in Africa or something? And this is important -- just because it doesn't involve people dying doesn't mean it's suddenly OK to rip people off.
So anything you've ever said or done is the property of all humanity.
So if I videotaped you masturbating and decided to give a copy of that video to everyone in the world, that is the property of all humanity, and surely there is nothing wrong with that.
So a musician shouldn't be allowed to offer copies of his music for sale and expect people to pay for them?
No games
Good if you're stuck on a train or plane with nothing to do. Why should I need a game boy if I have a phone, which is just a tiny computer?
no sms messages
It's pretty cool to get a page when a production system at the office stops working and starts losing money.
no camera
Could come in handy for a car accident for evidence.
It's convenient to have a bunch of things like that in one semi-easy-to-use device.
You are arguing semantics, and completely ignoring the fact that THE INFORMATION is what is being offered for sale, not the medium.
Futhermore, you clearly have something that you did not have before, and have not rendered payment in return for the information. You have entered into an uneven, unwilling transaction with the person who has the rights to distribute the material as they see fit.
Could you give us some citations? While you're heart-wrenching stories do bring a tear to the eye, they sound -- for the most part -- like bleeding-heart bullshit, designed to make us think that our government is an evil force (rolls eyes.)
Pasting one or two stories doesn't count. With all of that well-written rhetoric, surely there must be some meat to this main-course of pain.
Citation? Without citing evidence, all you are doing is pulling numbers out of your ass.
And I don't see you arguing with me about pedophiles or terrorism. I assume you conceding those points? Though I think a written concession is in order.
Look, if you don't like that they overprice stuff, FINE. DON'T BUY IT.
But you DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE IT.
Just because it's easy to take something doesn't mean it's OK to take something.
I could probably rape your grandmother without too much effort, but that doesn't mean I should go and do it.
First of all, this issue is important to some people. If it's not important to you, why are you even arguing about it? YOU ARE INSISTING ON ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT YOU CONSIDER TRIVIAL. At least I consider it important! What the hell is wrong with you?
Furthermore, the DoJ spends its resources on lots of things. If we took your argument and applied it to medical science, you'd be saying ALL of our money on cancer and AIDS, and not on Alzheimer's or Parkinson's because hey, they don't actually kill anybody. That position, frankly, is idiotic.
And lest I let it slide -- Bush is in office so EVERYTHING is awful! The schools magically started to SUCK for the past four years now that BUSH is in office! You are SO FUNNY! It's just like 4 years ago when we had morons blaming Clinton for EVERYTHING being SO AWFUL!!! Really. You. Are. Too. Much.
I'm sure that they don't arrest A SINGLE TERRORIST, A SINGLE PEDOPHILE, A SINGLE IDENTITY THIEF while they target piracy.
Terrorism arrest, Last week
Pedophile arrest, Two Tuesdays ago
Identity theft arrest, Posted 12 hours ago
Running wild and unchecked, indeed. Just because they don't post stories about terrorism arrests, pedophile arrests, and identity theft arrests on Slashdot doesn't mean they aren't going on.
In short: you are ignorant.
News flash: you don't have to be convicted of a crime to have evidence seized. If someone steals your wallet and the cops catch the guy, guess what -- you don't get your wallet back! IT'S EVIDENCE. Once the court case is over and the appeals process has run its course, THEN you get your wallet back. DUH.
So it seems like you are over-reacting to something that in all likelihood went down like this:
* Someone saw that those 5 people were offering all kinds of copyrighted things up for free (illegal)
* Someone decided to call the cops on them
* The cops saw that they were offering all kinds of copyrighted things up for free
* The cops came in and seized the evidence
So, explain to us all how that scenario wouldn't be "just cause", and explain to us all how ANYONE is acting like thugs?
Why do you have to take something when you're not willing to pay the price? If someone charges you $10 for a milkshake, you don't have the right to take the milkshake because the price is too high.
People that are taking things without paying for them deserve to be prosecuted, end of story.