Not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University has a few programs that touch on what you've mentioned. Check out the site, including the graduate programs and the centers, such as The DeWitt Wallace Center for Communications and Journalism
Where in the hell are you looking that is $60-80k a year? My school is nowhere NEAR that level and it is unfortunately one of the most expensive in the country. My sister is a senior this year and got a big college book for Christmas, which had a ranking of the most expensive schools. I seem to remember the priciest schools being just below $40k (including room/board, fees, etc). Who the hell pays $320k for a diploma?
Rutgers may be a bargain, but I'd say it is a bit of a stretch of the imagination to call it a "public ivy." Granted, it may be older than most of them, but today it is nowhere near their level. Berkeley, UMich, UVA, Texas, etc... but not Rutgers. Please note that I'm saying this as a lifelong resident of New Jersey =)
We don't stick people in the driver's seat of a car and tell them "go to it".
And if something in your car breaks can the average person just pop the hood open and be done with it? No. Should the fact that they're not an auto mechanic render them a "clueless moron?" Nope. Following your reasoning, all people who own cars should know how to fix every conceivable problem that could ever arise from its usage.
40% of the purchase goes to iTunes, 30% goes to the label (which may or may not be an RIAA member), 10% goes to an intermediary middleman (if one exists) such as Amazon.com or AOL, 8% goes to the publisher (I think this is ASCAP, but I'm not really sure), and the remaining 12% goes to the artist. According to the article on Business 2.0 entitled The MP3 Economy: How labels and artists divvy up your MP3 dollar that these statistics were taken from, "twelve percent is average, but successful bands often hammer out better contracts. In many major-label contracts, charges for 'packaging' and promotional copies are subtracted from the artist's cut, leaving the talent with a measly 8 percent. BMG, Universal, and Warner have announced plans to do away with such deductions for digital downloads."
If someone takes my GPL'd code and includes it in their program, my loss is the loss of royalties or contract programing revenue that I would have recieved if they had approached me.
Yeah, but you forgot something important... you're posting on Slashdot. Thus, you have no actual loss of "royalties or contract programing revenue," because these people would never have purchased the rights to your music^H^H^H^H^Hcode in the first place;-).
You don't explicitly state this, but implicit in your post is the idea that music piracy on the Internet persists because of the "out-dated" business model of the RIAA. Although this may (or may not) be the case, I still don't understand how this justifies the illegal downloading of MP3s. If I declare that the business model of commercial software development is out-dated does that grant me the right to pirate said software and violate the publishers' copyrights? If the business model of open source development is out-dated does that grant me open license [no put intended;-)] to violate the GPL? But I digress.... Let's assume the the business model of the RIAA is indeed outdated.
However, a few people came along, changed the model up a bit, and started offering affordable, a la carte music via services such as iTunes and Rhapsody. They have changed the business model to incorporate online distribution of music and give the people what they have claimed would entice them to stop illegally downloading MP3s. Yet, the pirating doesn't stop, and the echo of the "out-dated" model reverberates again.
The problem is that most people, I tend to think, just use this "out-dated" argument as another excuse to illegally download MP3s. They don't state what is out-dated about services such as iTunes, nor do they offer alternatives. This is just a cop-out to them. I commend you, however, for actually taking a proactive stance and offering up an alternative.
However, words and action are a far cry from one another. This is especially true in a community like Slashdot, where the open source mantra "if it doesn't do what you want, then go do it yourself and provide it to the community" prevails. If the model is so broken, then why don't all of these people (who appear to be broke since they can't allegedly afford 99 cent downloads) fill the void and DEVELOP exactly what you've described and fix the situation, while making a pretty penny at the same time? If people stopped bitching and moaning and actually did something about it, everyone would win. The evil, monolithic RIAA would become a vestige of the past, shunned by the invisible hand of the market, the artists would actually receive the fair share they deserve, and you would all be able to afford music and have a real incentive to purchase it.
The thing is.. I don't see this happening. Until I do, I will continue to believe that this argument is hogwash..
Musicians don't have ANY "right" to make money. None of us do. You have the right to keep what you make, basically. Making it is your problem. I know that intrudes on a lot of "starving artist fantasies" but that's tough, that's what the rest of us call capitalism.
File swappers don't have ANY "right" to pirate MP3s. None of us do. You have the right to download what you already own, basically. Owning it is your problem. I know that intrudes on a lot of "information wants to be free fantasies" but that's tough, that's what the rest of us call capitalism.
If you're deadset on making yourself look like an idiot by quoting Eminem on a Slashdot story, at least get the lyrics correct. The proper wording word be:
The FCC won't let [VoIP] be, or let [VoIP] be [VoIP].
Given this, the quote has absolutely no relation whatsoever to the topic at hand and you sound like a jackass. So, why'd you quote Eminem again?
Uh. How about you fucking wait until December 16th when you can buy it on DVD? That's what you're _supposed_ to do.
On the other hand, since waiting certainly might not mesh with the oh-so-prevalent "whatever i want, however i want, whenever i want, for free, so help me God" attitude seen here, you could always go and download the movie off the Internet and justify this action to yourself through one of the following two options:
1.) The MPAA is evil. They exploit artists, surpress indepedant films, and even steal lollipops from cute little three year old girls! Everything they make is crap anyway. They also have lots of money -- too much in fact, that they don't even need. So, I'm going to spite the evil empire and get back at the man by downloading this movie online. I'm Robin Fucking Hood. However, there is this giant red flashing light in the back of my mind blarming at me.... if the MPAA is so evil and produces such shit, then why did I see the movie in the first place and then go so far as to reccommend it to other people? Why am I supporting the very institution I seek to undermind? Oh well.. I'll just conveniently ignore that curious little tidbit.
2.) Intellectual property as a whole is just plain wrong. Anyone who believes otherwise should rot in fucking hell. When I was little, I was a really ugly baby and I shit my pants a lot, so nobody ever shared their toys with me. I'm still a tad bitter about this, so everyone should share everything with me. It took a lot of blood, sweat, and tears for you to make that last book/CD/movie/painting/etc? Oh well that's unfortunate!! If I had looked for a million bajillion infinity years in the digits of Pi, I would have found the digital representation of what you just created... so in effect you really didn't create it.. you just discovered it. someone else would have done this anyway... so fuck you, we're not going to reward you for all of your work. thus, I'm going to download this movie off of the internet, regardless of the fact that this constitutes copyright infringement, because the law is UNJUST!! IT VIOLATES MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO HAVE EVERYTHING FOR FREE!
Or, as I mentioned earlier, you could just drop all of these pretentious arguments for a second and realize it's just a movie. This is crucial to neither your physical survival nor the survival of liberty, justice, or democracy. Let's just buy the DVD and be done with it, shall we?
I agree with you... getting your news from a variety of sources, digesting each of them, and then making decisions for yourself, definitely balances out the bias that is inherent to all sources of information.
HOWEVER, the parent didn't say this. What he claimed, was that blocking banner ads was the panacea to biased media. This is just horseshit. You know this as well as I. Notice how you made no mention of banner ads? Blocking the banner ads on Slashdot makes it no more of an objective source of news than an ad-free version of The New Republic online.
The entirety of your solution rests in what I said in the previous paragraph: a diversity of voices. This is exactly why the FCC's new media rules are so dangerous... Sure, banner ads may be more explicit, but they are far less insidious than the transparent conformity of media consolidation.
Oh and BTW. Didn't you mean FOX, instead of CNN;-)
you are sorely mistaken if you believe that by merely filtering out banner ads you elevate the internet to some astral plain of objectivity, free from the creeping hand of advertising and consumerism that you speak of.
No.. the only reason why this is working is because people _broke the law_. Plain and simple. The RIAA may be evil. If you believe this to be the case, then don't download their music and open yourself up to a lawsuit that is only going to further line their corporate coffers! If you are so adamantly against the RIAA, seek another venue through which to acquire your music. Guess what, if you do this, then no one is going to be knocking on your front door with a lawsuit! Why? The RIAA has absolutely no standing in ANY court of law to file a lawsuit against you for violating a copyright that they do not hold.
Many people will criticize my claims, stating that the copyright laws are unfair. You know what... maybe they are. However, they doesn't give you license to just go and break them. No.. this is NOT civil disobedience. To claim that downloading MP3's is an attempt to spite our antiquated laws is a spit in the face of those who practiced true civil disobedience.
As many have said, downloading the RIAA's music _illegally_ from the Internet doesn't hurt them monetarily at all. All it does is further their tyrannical grasp. Thus, if you truly want to fight the system, you would support OTHER artists. If you don't, you're merely another whining hypocrite who just wants a free ride, all the while criticizing the institution that your actions are supporting.
The Jargon File contains this for the appropriate entry: "[from Maxwell's Demon, later incorrectly retronymed as 'Disk And Execution MONitor']."
Moreover, Tanenbaum, whom I would tend to lend a bit more credence to than ESR, but that's another discussion, claims in Modern Opeating Systems that daemon is merely "a variant spelling of 'demon,' which is a self-employed evil spirit."
... how long it will be before people like you stop using this alarmist, knee-jerk logic couched in terms of fanciful conspiracy theories involving [ Microsoft | RIAA | DMCA | Patriot Act | USPTO | et al. ] to inflate your own self-importance and that of your cause through utterly ridiculous future scenarios.
Though I generally disagree with Dennis Miller's politics, I must say that his "rants," are usually pretty amusing/funny. He once did one on conspiracy theorists. The gist of it was that conspiracy theorists are generally lonely nobodies who invent these ridiculous situations in order to make themselves believe they are important.
The DOJ doesn't give a flying fuck about Linux Users. John Ashcroft doesn't know who the hell Linux Torvalds is, and even if he did, he wouldn't care. Sure, I'll give you that Linux is a nice OS. I'm running it now... But it's just a fucking piece of software. It's not some world-changing revolution that is drawing the ire of black helicpoters and well-dressed men with radio ear pieces. Give it a rest Fox Mulder.
Though I don't agree w/ the parents to this post, I'd have to disagree with your assertion.
The only "difference" between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is the passage of time and the changing interests of those using such language over said time.
Don't believe me? Just look at the trouble the Soviets had against Afghani resistance in the 80's.. back then we supported those Aghani "freedom fighters" to repel the insidious enchroachment of communists:
The Afghan resistance was backed by the intelligence services of the United States and Saudi Arabia with nearly $6 billion worth of weapons. And the territory targeted last week, a set of six encampments around Khost, where the Saudi exile Osama bin Laden has financed a kind of "terrorist university," in the words of a senior United States intelligence official, is well known to the Central Intelligence Agency.
The C.I.A.'s military and financial support for the Afghan rebels indirectly helped build the camps that the United States attacked. And some of the same warriors who fought the Soviets with the C.I.A.'s help are now fighting under Mr. bin Laden's banner.
By 1998, times had changed and our national interests had shifted as well. A communist Soviet regime was no longer a threat to us, and role reversal occured, transposing those Afghani "freedom fighters" who we had once supported into terrorists who we sought to eradicate. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessfully, and on September 11, 2001, those "freedom fighters" fucked us in the ass.
The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter has nothing whatsoever to do with their motives; it has everything to do with the frame of reference of those making such a distinction.
root@mthz:/mnt/winc/windows# strings winsock.dll |grep BSD BSD Socket API API for Windows BSD Socket API for Windows
Trying grepping for "Regents" or some other string that appears in the BSD copyright notice and you'll see that they do not appear. Those few matches don't seem to have anything whatsoever to do with a notice of BSD copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
by far, the funniest comment i've ever read on \.
Not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University has a few programs that touch on what you've mentioned. Check out the site, including the graduate programs and the centers, such as
The DeWitt Wallace Center for Communications and Journalism
Where in the hell are you looking that is $60-80k a year? My school is nowhere NEAR that level and it is unfortunately one of the most expensive in the country. My sister is a senior this year and got a big college book for Christmas, which had a ranking of the most expensive schools. I seem to remember the priciest schools being just below $40k (including room/board, fees, etc). Who the hell pays $320k for a diploma?
Rutgers may be a bargain, but I'd say it is a bit of a stretch of the imagination to call it a "public ivy." Granted, it may be older than most of them, but today it is nowhere near their level. Berkeley, UMich, UVA, Texas, etc... but not Rutgers. Please note that I'm saying this as a lifelong resident of New Jersey =)
And if something in your car breaks can the average person just pop the hood open and be done with it? No. Should the fact that they're not an auto mechanic render them a "clueless moron?" Nope. Following your reasoning, all people who own cars should know how to fix every conceivable problem that could ever arise from its usage.
40% of the purchase goes to iTunes, 30% goes to the label (which may or may not be an RIAA member), 10% goes to an intermediary middleman (if one exists) such as Amazon.com or AOL, 8% goes to the publisher (I think this is ASCAP, but I'm not really sure), and the remaining 12% goes to the artist. According to the article on Business 2.0 entitled The MP3 Economy: How labels and artists divvy up your MP3 dollar that these statistics were taken from, "twelve percent is average, but successful bands often hammer out better contracts. In many major-label contracts, charges for 'packaging' and promotional copies are subtracted from the artist's cut, leaving the talent with a measly 8 percent. BMG, Universal, and Warner have announced plans to do away with such deductions for digital downloads."
Yeah, but you forgot something important... you're posting on Slashdot. Thus, you have no actual loss of "royalties or contract programing revenue," because these people would never have purchased the rights to your music^H^H^H^H^Hcode in the first place
You don't explicitly state this, but implicit in your post is the idea that music piracy on the Internet persists because of the "out-dated" business model of the RIAA. Although this may (or may not) be the case, I still don't understand how this justifies the illegal downloading of MP3s. If I declare that the business model of commercial software development is out-dated does that grant me the right to pirate said software and violate the publishers' copyrights? If the business model of open source development is out-dated does that grant me open license [no put intended ;-)] to violate the GPL? But I digress.... Let's assume the the business model of the RIAA is indeed outdated.
However, a few people came along, changed the model up a bit, and started offering affordable, a la carte music via services such as iTunes and Rhapsody. They have changed the business model to incorporate online distribution of music and give the people what they have claimed would entice them to stop illegally downloading MP3s. Yet, the pirating doesn't stop, and the echo of the "out-dated" model reverberates again.
The problem is that most people, I tend to think, just use this "out-dated" argument as another excuse to illegally download MP3s. They don't state what is out-dated about services such as iTunes, nor do they offer alternatives. This is just a cop-out to them. I commend you, however, for actually taking a proactive stance and offering up an alternative.
However, words and action are a far cry from one another. This is especially true in a community like Slashdot, where the open source mantra "if it doesn't do what you want, then go do it yourself and provide it to the community" prevails. If the model is so broken, then why don't all of these people (who appear to be broke since they can't allegedly afford 99 cent downloads) fill the void and DEVELOP exactly what you've described and fix the situation, while making a pretty penny at the same time? If people stopped bitching and moaning and actually did something about it, everyone would win. The evil, monolithic RIAA would become a vestige of the past, shunned by the invisible hand of the market, the artists would actually receive the fair share they deserve, and you would all be able to afford music and have a real incentive to purchase it.
The thing is.. I don't see this happening. Until I do, I will continue to believe that this argument is hogwash..
File swappers don't have ANY "right" to pirate MP3s. None of us do. You have the right to download what you already own, basically. Owning it is your problem. I know that intrudes on a lot of "information wants to be free fantasies" but that's tough, that's what the rest of us call capitalism.
Nahh.. that already happened to my post
Given this, the quote has absolutely no relation whatsoever to the topic at hand and you sound like a jackass. So, why'd you quote Eminem again?
Do any of you people actually read the articles here? This post is lifted directly from the discussion forum in the linked article.
Uh. How about you fucking wait until December 16th when you can buy it on DVD? That's what you're _supposed_ to do.
On the other hand, since waiting certainly might not mesh with the oh-so-prevalent "whatever i want, however i want, whenever i want, for free, so help me God" attitude seen here, you could always go and download the movie off the Internet and justify this action to yourself through one of the following two options:
1.) The MPAA is evil. They exploit artists, surpress indepedant films, and even steal lollipops from cute little three year old girls! Everything they make is crap anyway. They also have lots of money -- too much in fact, that they don't even need. So, I'm going to spite the evil empire and get back at the man by downloading this movie online. I'm Robin Fucking Hood. However, there is this giant red flashing light in the back of my mind blarming at me.... if the MPAA is so evil and produces such shit, then why did I see the movie in the first place and then go so far as to reccommend it to other people? Why am I supporting the very institution I seek to undermind? Oh well.. I'll just conveniently ignore that curious little tidbit.
2.) Intellectual property as a whole is just plain wrong. Anyone who believes otherwise should rot in fucking hell. When I was little, I was a really ugly baby and I shit my pants a lot, so nobody ever shared their toys with me. I'm still a tad bitter about this, so everyone should share everything with me. It took a lot of blood, sweat, and tears for you to make that last book/CD/movie/painting/etc? Oh well that's unfortunate!! If I had looked for a million bajillion infinity years in the digits of Pi, I would have found the digital representation of what you just created... so in effect you really didn't create it.. you just discovered it. someone else would have done this anyway... so fuck you, we're not going to reward you for all of your work. thus, I'm going to download this movie off of the internet, regardless of the fact that this constitutes copyright infringement, because the law is UNJUST!! IT VIOLATES MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO HAVE EVERYTHING FOR FREE!
Or, as I mentioned earlier, you could just drop all of these pretentious arguments for a second and realize it's just a movie. This is crucial to neither your physical survival nor the survival of liberty, justice, or democracy. Let's just buy the DVD and be done with it, shall we?
your choice =)
http://www.jwz.org/hacks/worth.pl
"If you are interested in a particular piece of knowledge, like how to operate a hernia - I am happy to share this with you."
And I'm sure that your medical school was quite willing to do the same for you free of charge, right?
You obviously didn't read my post, or the parent.
;-)
I agree with you... getting your news from a variety of sources, digesting each of them, and then making decisions for yourself, definitely balances out the bias that is inherent to all sources of information.
HOWEVER, the parent didn't say this. What he claimed, was that blocking banner ads was the panacea to biased media. This is just horseshit. You know this as well as I. Notice how you made no mention of banner ads? Blocking the banner ads on Slashdot makes it no more of an objective source of news than an ad-free version of The New Republic online.
The entirety of your solution rests in what I said in the previous paragraph: a diversity of voices. This is exactly why the FCC's new media rules are so dangerous... Sure, banner ads may be more explicit, but they are far less insidious than the transparent conformity of media consolidation.
Oh and BTW. Didn't you mean FOX, instead of CNN
welcome to the cruel place known as the real world..
you are sorely mistaken if you believe that by merely filtering out banner ads you elevate the internet to some astral plain of objectivity, free from the creeping hand of advertising and consumerism that you speak of.
No.. the only reason why this is working is because people _broke the law_. Plain and simple. The RIAA may be evil. If you believe this to be the case, then don't download their music and open yourself up to a lawsuit that is only going to further line their corporate coffers! If you are so adamantly against the RIAA, seek another venue through which to acquire your music. Guess what, if you do this, then no one is going to be knocking on your front door with a lawsuit! Why? The RIAA has absolutely no standing in ANY court of law to file a lawsuit against you for violating a copyright that they do not hold.
;-)
Many people will criticize my claims, stating that the copyright laws are unfair. You know what... maybe they are. However, they doesn't give you license to just go and break them. No.. this is NOT civil disobedience. To claim that downloading MP3's is an attempt to spite our antiquated laws is a spit in the face of those who practiced true civil disobedience.
As many have said, downloading the RIAA's music _illegally_ from the Internet doesn't hurt them monetarily at all. All it does is further their tyrannical grasp. Thus, if you truly want to fight the system, you would support OTHER artists. If you don't, you're merely another whining hypocrite who just wants a free ride, all the while criticizing the institution that your actions are supporting.
but that's just my opinion... i could be wrong
before continuing on your baseless argument, i'd encourage you to go read Thomas Nagel's The Absurd and reconsider what you've just said.
Not sure where you got your information from...
The Jargon File contains this for the appropriate entry: "[from Maxwell's Demon, later incorrectly retronymed as 'Disk And Execution MONitor']."
Moreover, Tanenbaum, whom I would tend to lend a bit more credence to than ESR, but that's another discussion, claims in Modern Opeating Systems that daemon is merely "a variant spelling of 'demon,' which is a self-employed evil spirit."
... how long it will be before people like you stop using this alarmist, knee-jerk logic couched in terms of fanciful conspiracy theories involving [ Microsoft | RIAA | DMCA | Patriot Act | USPTO | et al. ] to inflate your own self-importance and that of your cause through utterly ridiculous future scenarios.
Though I generally disagree with Dennis Miller's politics, I must say that his "rants," are usually pretty amusing/funny. He once did one on conspiracy theorists. The gist of it was that conspiracy theorists are generally lonely nobodies who invent these ridiculous situations in order to make themselves believe they are important.
The DOJ doesn't give a flying fuck about Linux Users. John Ashcroft doesn't know who the hell Linux Torvalds is, and even if he did, he wouldn't care. Sure, I'll give you that Linux is a nice OS. I'm running it now... But it's just a fucking piece of software. It's not some world-changing revolution that is drawing the ire of black helicpoters and well-dressed men with radio ear pieces. Give it a rest Fox Mulder.
forgot to cite =)
Check out New York Times on 8/24/98... "Afghan Camps, Hidden in Hills, Stymied Soviet Attacks for Years"
The only "difference" between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is the passage of time and the changing interests of those using such language over said time.
Don't believe me? Just look at the trouble the Soviets had against Afghani resistance in the 80's.. back then we supported those Aghani "freedom fighters" to repel the insidious enchroachment of communists:
By 1998, times had changed and our national interests had shifted as well. A communist Soviet regime was no longer a threat to us, and role reversal occured, transposing those Afghani "freedom fighters" who we had once supported into terrorists who we sought to eradicate. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessfully, and on September 11, 2001, those "freedom fighters" fucked us in the ass.
The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter has nothing whatsoever to do with their motives; it has everything to do with the frame of reference of those making such a distinction.
Bullshit. This is taken from Windows 98 SE (all matching files minus the hits that just randomly had the letters BSD in that order):
root@mthz:/mnt/winc/windows/system# strings wsock32.dll |grep BSD
BSD Socket API for Windows
root@mthz:/mnt/winc/windows/system# strings mswsock.dll |grep BSD
BSD Socket API for Windows
root@mthz:/mnt/winc/windows/system# strings vtcp.386 | grep BSD
BSDUrgent
root@mthz:/mnt/winc/windows/system# strings vudp.386 | grep BSD
BSDUrgent
root@mthz:/mnt/winc/windows# strings winsock.dll |grep BSD
BSD Socket API API for Windows
BSD Socket API for Windows
Trying grepping for "Regents" or some other string that appears in the BSD copyright notice and you'll see that they do not appear. Those few matches don't seem to have anything whatsoever to do with a notice of BSD copyright.