i understand why you think i am being inconsistent: that i claim the media industry is winding down. well yes, it IS winding down, because anything that can be packaged for free online IS going away. but eveything meatspace about the media industry meanwhile will continue: the movieplex, the concert arena, etc. that can even continue to grow, albeit with a big chunk bit out of it
the fact is, the movie industry does gangbuster business at the movieplex, and will continue to do so, all conventional wisdom aside (the same conventional wisdom that saw the television destroying them, the vhs, etc.). since the music industry consists mainly of this digital marketplace, with concerts but a tiny fraction, they are indeed going to die a miserable death, shriveling up to a phantom of their former selves
meanwhile, the movie industry still gets at least half of its income from the theatre business. so they can still finance and profit from $100 million dollar productions, even if the dvd aftermarket evaporated. the movie industry is cushioned from the financial oblivion of digital media
you are correct to say that the movie industry may take all of their profits from meatspace venues and fight a rearguard battle against evaporating digital revenues, you are correct to point that out indeed one owuld hope though that someone in the industry will see the futility in this someday, but obviously today, no one in leadership roles in media industries understand that
but you haven't established an inconsistency in my points, merely qualified and refined them down to the core of what i am saying: if it can't be sold in digital form, it's financially healthy. but if it can be traded for free on the web, its a dead business. that's the core of my message, still viable meatspace profits don't nullify that point
and that also qualifies my points about ip law (which i don't know if i said in this particular thread, but i've said 3x elsewhere under my grandparent post): anything involving real world items: pharmaceuticals, car engine designs, handbag patterns, etc., these types of ip law will remain unchallenged, as producers and distributors of real world goods are small in number, slow moving, and easy to track and shut down. meanwhile, anything disitributed and consumed digitally will simply fade from existence as a business model. infinite effortless free supply tends to make for a poor basis for a business model
music for simple sheer joy of it. i guess the reason my mind couldn't grok that so easily is because of all the joyless goings on in the rest of the subject matter here;-p
will be funded by the *aasholes, one way or the other. or the feds won't do any enforcement. do you understand why that is? the financial equation is not changed by federal enforcement rather than hired guns
as for the movie industry, the same movie industry that fought the vhs tooth and nail because it was going to destroy them, and now considers the dvd afternarket a major cashcow? the same movie industry tv was going to destroy? in other words, that fucking clueless movie industry?
the movie industry does gangbuster business in theatres. even with the cellphones and babies. they will continue to do just fine, as your 17 inch monitor in your mother's basement by your lonesome doesn't compare to the experience at the movieplex nex tto your girlfriend. they'll just completely lose their dvd aftermarket
al of the politcal donations, army of lawyers, technologically savvy programmers working for a bounty: this costs money. and one of the effects of piracy is to drain the coffers of the *AAsholes. such that, over time, there is less of a warchest to wage the mounting expensive technical, legal, and enforcement battles you envision
meanwhile, on the other side you have what? poor, technologically astute, media craving teenagers, motivated by nothing but a love for music, completely uncoordinated, and growing in number and sophistication
go ahead, place your bet. i think the teenagers have it. the machine poised against them will starve and simply breakdown. meanwhile, the teen's motivations are undeterred by the ineffective and spotty enforcement. the uncoordinated efforts of millions of poor teenagers will simply starve the machine of its cashflow, and break its will, as more and more recognize the futility of what they are trying to control. they simply can't do this forever: and as more and more technologically advanced filesharing apps come online, they must redouble their efforts at the same time their cash flow gets further depleted. its a losing, uphill battle
1. ip law, yes, will continue to exist for things that involve the production of real world items: pills, car engine design, handbags, etc. this is because the production and distribution is slow, small scale, and therefore easy to enforce
2. however, anything digitally related is impossible to enforce
"Tech-savvy users will be able to manipulate things to stay ahead of the game, but the average person can be prevented from engaging in most piracy through present enforcement methods"
no. tech-savvy users write software that encapsulate their knowledge. tech idiots just have to download the software. so its just an arms race: napster was beheaded, napster died. kazaa was floodable, kazaa spewed posion content. emule is attached to port, the port is blocked, etc. ip obfuscation, encryption, automatic proxy serving... it all gets incorporated after each battle. all that is happening is hardier and hardier weeds are being bred. all of the riaa's legal and technical efforts are doing is merely breeding the ultimate anonymous filesharing apps. its an arms race, one that is never won by the riaa. the only way the riaa can win the war is pervert the very nature of the internet itself, in such a way that also destroys anything compelling and useful about the internet. they simply can't win. the legal battles are meaningless, the technological battles merely breed stronger filesharing apps. game over
historically cannibalistic societies in the pacific did in fact call human flesh "long-pig"
we really **do** taste like pig
"the Marquesas Islands of Polynesia, where human flesh was called long-pig (Alanna King, ed., Robert Louis Stevenson in the South Seas, London: Luzac Paragon House, 1987: 45-50)."
it is a golden rule of any corporation that the boss knows less than the people who work for him. however, you need to lose the honesty and humility and you demonstrate: you come out and flatly say you aren't a good programmer
no: you don't get to flat out say you know less about programming anymore. if you wish to make it in middle management and make 2x the salary of what the programmers under you make, then you have to actually know less than them yet somehow believe you know more than them
so lose your integrity, and you will make more money than the guys who got As in the classes you got Cs in, and they will work for you
say, pharmaceutical formulations, or car engine design
this is because the production of real world goods is governed by manufacturing equipment, raw goods, manpower, distribution, etc. such that the creators and distributors of real world goods will always be slow moving and small in number, and therefore easy to control and keep in the realm of the law
meanwhile, anything that is created and distributed and consumed DIGITALLY is now free of economic rules of supply and demand: supply is infinite, distribution costs are zero. so book writers, musicians, and movie makers will have to rely on the fat, comfortable secondary revenue streams of autographed paper copies, moviehouses, advertising plugs, etc, and have nothing but massive fame and power otherwise. oh shucks, poor them
the printing press led to profound, **profound** changes in the realities of our societies. you are wishing to preserve ip law, but there is nothing that says ip law needs to continue to exist. so that what will happen is that ip law will simply cease to exist. doesn't matter if its on the books, its impossible to enforce, technology will always route around the laws
the internet will reap just as many profound changes on society as the printing press did. the death of ip law is just one of them, the first of them, being made apparent. the next big change i think is virtual democracy
but the only accomodation that ip law can make with the internet is to fall upon its sword. the laws simply don't matter anymore: they can't be enforced
DIGITAL versus REAL WORLD content creation is a very significant difference
the creation of real world items requires raw materials and machinery and manpower and distribution. even if the machinery were cheap and the raw materials were cheap and the manpower were cheap and the distribution were cheap, you are still talking the economics of supply and demand. there is cost involved. always. forever. when you are dealing with REAL WORLD goods
meanwhile, the digital world utterly flattens the economic rules of supply and demand. it is literally infinity and zero. if i have a car, and you steal my car, i don't have a car. if i give you copy of metallica, you have metallica, and i have metallica. the costs are ZERO to distribute, and nothing is destroyed, just effortlessly and infinitely reproduced with zero effort and zero distribution costs
real world goods, consumed in the real world, are always limited by economic realities. digital goods, consumed digitally, play by entirely different rules
understand the difference, rearrange your thinking. right now you simply don't get it
but i disagree with you that dwelling on the definitions of the terms involved sidesteps the argument
if every single person agreed with what you just wrote, there would still be a fight against irrelevancy by dead economic model distributors
so your point is ultimately pointless and pedantic. we understand what you mean, but "intellectual property" is still a valid concept, because most people understand that is limited in the ways you describe already. you're just playing with word definitions, not illuminating the real power conficts here, and so you don't actually address the conflict going on here
"I'm not willing to throw intellectual property under the bus until you can explain to me how people with ideas can distribute their life work and be fairly compensated."
ok, its 2058 and ip law is dead. you just wrote "harry potter and the toilet gnomes". a gazillion kids around the world read it electronically. you get $0
are you unfairly compensated?
well, now you are a world famous author idolized by most kids in the world. thats a lot of power and fame. how does that power and fame get turned into $? lots of ways: autographed copies, private readings, personalized content for rich fans, etc. you could make a tidy little enjoyable living doing that
furthermore, how much $ did albert einstein get for general relativity? how much money did shakespeare get for hamlet?
what do they get?
they get immortality. respect from their peers. renown, love, admiration past their lifetimes
how do those qualities figure into your calculation of "fair compensation"?
in other words, there are more motivations in this world than just $. that if no money were ever guranteed again for any work of art, guess what: art would go right on being made. because anyone who is really producing art, is tapping into something that isn't motivated by money in the first place, and is rewarded with something more valuable than money in the end
and you STILL get related revenue streams to make you quite comfortably rich
ip law is only dead in spaces where what is created is easily and rapidly distributed, most obviously, as digital media
in other words, i can send 100 copies of a book, a song, or, soon enough, a movie, easily on my home pc to anyone else in the world. there's no more bottle neck of a printing press, a vinyl pressing plant, or a film spooler anymore. its all digital. the internet did that
meanwhile, you can't consume viagra digitally: you need a chemical plant. i can't put viagra in my shared folder and some guys in osaka and lagos and samarkhand gets a viagra. i'm being pedantic, but you see what i mean now
ip law still works well then when the distributors are a small, slow subset of players, usually and obviously having to do with the creation of real world goods
the lessons of ip law and music then are completely unrelated to ip law issues governing the creation fo anything in the real world, such as pills
so you're "canonical ip problem" isn't canonical at all
ip laws never rewarded creators. it rewarded distributors. one hit musical wonders throughout the 70s and 80s signed away their rights for pennies, were given free rides on corporate jets for a few months, then utterly forgotten about. bands like the beatles and prince got to be powerful because they became popular enough over long enough of a time that they took on the rules of the distributors, and became part of the machinery. but the vast majority of musical creation was never rewarded in real sense that you mean
so the idea ip rewarding creators is a nice idealistic selling point, but it never actually works that way. the rules of power favors the distributors, so they merely shade and juggle the legalese that the ip laws serve them instead of the creators
this leads us to 2 conclusions:
1. destroying ip doesn't actually impoverish creators 2. creators can still tour- you can't distrubte a concert tour on the web. creators can still whore for advertising. creators can be sponsored by corporate masters to make corporate product. and creators can simply enjoy their fame. is money really the only thing that motivates people to create music?
so its a better world without ip. its not like music will suddenly disappear. cheap opo like britney spears and justin timberlake won't even disappear: they'll simply be hired by corporations to produce product that is used for advertising, brand building, etc.
the desire to create music is not dependent upon financial concerns. music predates ip law, duh. most kids pick up the guitar to impress chicks. now if you said making music means you could never seduce a woman ever again, then yeah, music is dead. otherwise, no ip law? no problem. full steam ahead
it made books cheap, leading to better educated commoners, leading to the creation of a middle class, leading to the idea of democracy and equality
i'm obviously broadly glossing over the historical details, but the lesson is that the printing press allowed for the realization of a number of previously impossible and unforseen societal changes
whatever the internet is going to do society in the realm of unintended consequences, one is sizing up pretty obvious:
the invalidation of the concept of intellectual property
intellectual property works when only a small number of players distribute data. it takes a lot to run a vinyl pressing plant, and easy to find and shut one down that doesn't play by the rules. but when every single person is a one man effortless data distribution factory, then getting everyone to play by the rules of the game becomes impossible to enforce
such that there is no more game. the idea of intellectual property simply ceases to be a valid concept. if it gets out on the web, it stays there. and anything not on the web is given a strong incentive to get on there. witness the imbroglio over guns n roses chinese democracy album recently. once its out there, you can't take it back, and it is extremely easy and anonymous to get out there
what can you enforce in such an environment? say the *AAssholes actually get their way and get all of their draconian laws passed. who cares?
do they honestly believe anything will change? the technology will simply treat their laws like damage, and route around them. this is what the internet was made to do
go for it *AAssholes, give the laws your best shot. why do you believe any legal structure will work to contain the internet? or, i guess the next step is: break the internet. destroy what makes the internet compelling and useful in order to preserve a dying business model
part of the effectiveness of this technology involves expressionless faces. if you raise your eyebrows in an artifical wide eyed glare, the database can't effectively match you against...
i understand why tidal pools can be thought of as interesting chemical incubators for life with all of the heating and cooling, wetting and drying that goes on, but a lot of other completely common and normal processes that can take place on a moonless planet can also lead to such incubators as well. waves, daily temperature variations, seasonal fluctuations, geography, etc.
the moon does make us an interesting little quasi double planet system. but i think that that uniqueness does not go hand in hand with our planet's other unique trait, life. correlation is not causation looms large in my mind on this idea that the moon gave the earth life. no, the earth's chemical makeup, temperature, and atmospheric pressure putting us near water's triple point, with a lot of water around: that gave us life. every other detail seems secondary and not mandatory
if germany prevents you from reading nazi literature, it is the same KIND of censorship as china not allowing you to read any criticism of the government whatsoever. however, as you can obviously see, the DEGREE AND SCALE of the censorship is hugely different. you can still read tons of media criticizing the government in germany
likewise, preventing you from watching women perform blowjobs on guys in the bushes is the same KIND of sexual morality enforcement as muslim fundamentalists wrapping women from head to toe. however, it is obviously to a much greater DEGREE AND SCALE. you can go to any city in the usa and watch women walk around in tube tops and miniskirts
i am not defending the censorship of the pornography websites. but i am saying that it is a much more minor transgression on your freedom than what goes on in fundamentalist muslim countries. and that matters
in other words, we don't have to be a perfect society in order to criticize societies that are a lot lower on the scale of freedom
so many times you will see criticism of say, chinese censorship, and then someone responds "yeah well, fox news spouts propaganda, so its the same thing!"
no, it is not the same thing at all
and simply because fox news exists does not mean we have to stop criticizing china. you can read any damn media you want in the usa, form any country. in china, you can't see or read anything that remotely criticizes the government. and if you criticize the government in china, you are subject to punishment. do you think twice about criticizing gw bush? no. that matters a hell of a lot more than fox news existing or not
sp if another society commits a crime to a much greater order of magnitude, they are perfectly valid targets for criticism, even if your own society engages in the same sort of crime, TO A MUCH LESSER DEGREE AND SCALE
otherwise, the most liberal society in the world, with the teensiest bit of social enforcement, cannot criticize the most oppressive regime on the world. of course it can. of course it SHOULD
some people just have absolutely ridiculous, impossible standards before you are allowed to criticize others. this speaks volumes about their own character flaws, but it says nothing about a real and valid basis for criticizing others in the real world
no, you do not have to be a saint before you can criticize others. if your society's crimes are much less than another society's crimes, you have every right and moral authority to criticize the much worse society. NO society can ever be perfect. so expecting someone to be perfect ebfore they can criticize simply means there will be no progress possible in this world. its an impossible standard to live up to
so frankly, your words:
"If we are enforcing our opinions on obscenity on others, we are little different than the Islamists who are enforcing their belief that women showing any skin are being obscene."
is complete and utter bullshit
we are VERY different, even if we slid a hell of whole lot on the scale of censorship and freedom, we'd still be a lot more free than say press freedoms in china or russia or personal freedoms in saudi arabia or iran
and we have every right and moral authority to criticize those societies for that fact, because of the concepts of DEGREE AND SCALE
it's not from culture, it's from basic female psychology: the female that is promsicuous puts all the females at risk because their investment in a male for caregiving duties is under threat to be stolen
the group polices the behavior of the individuals to keep the sexual power in line
of course infidelity continues, its just secret and quiet
so yeah, we screw a lot, just like bonobos, but its all hush hush, that's the big difference: not that sex doesn't occur, but that sex doesn't occur OPENLY
we're the thinking apes. as such, it naturally follows that we're also the ones to lie the most. a better name for homo sapiens is homo hypocritus
but there is no better life in telling the truth about sex, about having our sexuality in public: it just runs too roughshod of our craven psychosexual motivations, we set ourselves up to be attacked by those just acting the way homo sapiens act about sex for selfish genetic reasons
so we continue in our special secret, lying homo sapiens way with our sexuality. we screw, a lot, we do. it's just that this particular ape does it secretly
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
i understand why you think i am being inconsistent: that i claim the media industry is winding down. well yes, it IS winding down, because anything that can be packaged for free online IS going away. but eveything meatspace about the media industry meanwhile will continue: the movieplex, the concert arena, etc. that can even continue to grow, albeit with a big chunk bit out of it
the fact is, the movie industry does gangbuster business at the movieplex, and will continue to do so, all conventional wisdom aside (the same conventional wisdom that saw the television destroying them, the vhs, etc.). since the music industry consists mainly of this digital marketplace, with concerts but a tiny fraction, they are indeed going to die a miserable death, shriveling up to a phantom of their former selves
meanwhile, the movie industry still gets at least half of its income from the theatre business. so they can still finance and profit from $100 million dollar productions, even if the dvd aftermarket evaporated. the movie industry is cushioned from the financial oblivion of digital media
you are correct to say that the movie industry may take all of their profits from meatspace venues and fight a rearguard battle against evaporating digital revenues, you are correct to point that out indeed one owuld hope though that someone in the industry will see the futility in this someday, but obviously today, no one in leadership roles in media industries understand that
but you haven't established an inconsistency in my points, merely qualified and refined them down to the core of what i am saying: if it can't be sold in digital form, it's financially healthy. but if it can be traded for free on the web, its a dead business. that's the core of my message, still viable meatspace profits don't nullify that point
and that also qualifies my points about ip law (which i don't know if i said in this particular thread, but i've said 3x elsewhere under my grandparent post): anything involving real world items: pharmaceuticals, car engine designs, handbag patterns, etc., these types of ip law will remain unchallenged, as producers and distributors of real world goods are small in number, slow moving, and easy to track and shut down. meanwhile, anything disitributed and consumed digitally will simply fade from existence as a business model. infinite effortless free supply tends to make for a poor basis for a business model
they think watching Star Trek is a prerequisite to being a CIO
"Earl Grey, Hot!"
music for simple sheer joy of it. i guess the reason my mind couldn't grok that so easily is because of all the joyless goings on in the rest of the subject matter here ;-p
i mustn't forget the basics in life
will be funded by the *aasholes, one way or the other. or the feds won't do any enforcement. do you understand why that is? the financial equation is not changed by federal enforcement rather than hired guns
as for the movie industry, the same movie industry that fought the vhs tooth and nail because it was going to destroy them, and now considers the dvd afternarket a major cashcow? the same movie industry tv was going to destroy? in other words, that fucking clueless movie industry?
the movie industry does gangbuster business in theatres. even with the cellphones and babies. they will continue to do just fine, as your 17 inch monitor in your mother's basement by your lonesome doesn't compare to the experience at the movieplex nex tto your girlfriend. they'll just completely lose their dvd aftermarket
boofuckinghoo
al of the politcal donations, army of lawyers, technologically savvy programmers working for a bounty: this costs money. and one of the effects of piracy is to drain the coffers of the *AAsholes. such that, over time, there is less of a warchest to wage the mounting expensive technical, legal, and enforcement battles you envision
meanwhile, on the other side you have what? poor, technologically astute, media craving teenagers, motivated by nothing but a love for music, completely uncoordinated, and growing in number and sophistication
go ahead, place your bet. i think the teenagers have it. the machine poised against them will starve and simply breakdown. meanwhile, the teen's motivations are undeterred by the ineffective and spotty enforcement. the uncoordinated efforts of millions of poor teenagers will simply starve the machine of its cashflow, and break its will, as more and more recognize the futility of what they are trying to control. they simply can't do this forever: and as more and more technologically advanced filesharing apps come online, they must redouble their efforts at the same time their cash flow gets further depleted. its a losing, uphill battle
1. ip law, yes, will continue to exist for things that involve the production of real world items: pills, car engine design, handbags, etc. this is because the production and distribution is slow, small scale, and therefore easy to enforce
2. however, anything digitally related is impossible to enforce
"Tech-savvy users will be able to manipulate things to stay ahead of the game, but the average person can be prevented from engaging in most piracy through present enforcement methods"
no. tech-savvy users write software that encapsulate their knowledge. tech idiots just have to download the software. so its just an arms race: napster was beheaded, napster died. kazaa was floodable, kazaa spewed posion content. emule is attached to port, the port is blocked, etc. ip obfuscation, encryption, automatic proxy serving... it all gets incorporated after each battle. all that is happening is hardier and hardier weeds are being bred. all of the riaa's legal and technical efforts are doing is merely breeding the ultimate anonymous filesharing apps. its an arms race, one that is never won by the riaa. the only way the riaa can win the war is pervert the very nature of the internet itself, in such a way that also destroys anything compelling and useful about the internet. they simply can't win. the legal battles are meaningless, the technological battles merely breed stronger filesharing apps. game over
so money, power, fame, sex... these are not your motivations for creating music
what is?
i'm not teasing you, i'm genuinely interested
historically cannibalistic societies in the pacific did in fact call human flesh "long-pig"
we really **do** taste like pig
"the Marquesas Islands of Polynesia, where human flesh was called long-pig (Alanna King, ed., Robert Louis Stevenson in the South Seas, London: Luzac Paragon House, 1987: 45-50)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#Middle_Ages
real world items are still expensive
until we invent star trek fabricators ("earl gray, hot!"). but that's awhile off
it is a golden rule of any corporation that the boss knows less than the people who work for him. however, you need to lose the honesty and humility and you demonstrate: you come out and flatly say you aren't a good programmer
no: you don't get to flat out say you know less about programming anymore. if you wish to make it in middle management and make 2x the salary of what the programmers under you make, then you have to actually know less than them yet somehow believe you know more than them
so lose your integrity, and you will make more money than the guys who got As in the classes you got Cs in, and they will work for you
ip law will still exist for real world objects
say, pharmaceutical formulations, or car engine design
this is because the production of real world goods is governed by manufacturing equipment, raw goods, manpower, distribution, etc. such that the creators and distributors of real world goods will always be slow moving and small in number, and therefore easy to control and keep in the realm of the law
meanwhile, anything that is created and distributed and consumed DIGITALLY is now free of economic rules of supply and demand: supply is infinite, distribution costs are zero. so book writers, musicians, and movie makers will have to rely on the fat, comfortable secondary revenue streams of autographed paper copies, moviehouses, advertising plugs, etc, and have nothing but massive fame and power otherwise. oh shucks, poor them
the printing press led to profound, **profound** changes in the realities of our societies. you are wishing to preserve ip law, but there is nothing that says ip law needs to continue to exist. so that what will happen is that ip law will simply cease to exist. doesn't matter if its on the books, its impossible to enforce, technology will always route around the laws
the internet will reap just as many profound changes on society as the printing press did. the death of ip law is just one of them, the first of them, being made apparent. the next big change i think is virtual democracy
but the only accomodation that ip law can make with the internet is to fall upon its sword. the laws simply don't matter anymore: they can't be enforced
DIGITAL versus REAL WORLD content creation is a very significant difference
the creation of real world items requires raw materials and machinery and manpower and distribution. even if the machinery were cheap and the raw materials were cheap and the manpower were cheap and the distribution were cheap, you are still talking the economics of supply and demand. there is cost involved. always. forever. when you are dealing with REAL WORLD goods
meanwhile, the digital world utterly flattens the economic rules of supply and demand. it is literally infinity and zero. if i have a car, and you steal my car, i don't have a car. if i give you copy of metallica, you have metallica, and i have metallica. the costs are ZERO to distribute, and nothing is destroyed, just effortlessly and infinitely reproduced with zero effort and zero distribution costs
real world goods, consumed in the real world, are always limited by economic realities. digital goods, consumed digitally, play by entirely different rules
understand the difference, rearrange your thinking. right now you simply don't get it
but i disagree with you that dwelling on the definitions of the terms involved sidesteps the argument
if every single person agreed with what you just wrote, there would still be a fight against irrelevancy by dead economic model distributors
so your point is ultimately pointless and pedantic. we understand what you mean, but "intellectual property" is still a valid concept, because most people understand that is limited in the ways you describe already. you're just playing with word definitions, not illuminating the real power conficts here, and so you don't actually address the conflict going on here
"I'm not willing to throw intellectual property under the bus until you can explain to me how people with ideas can distribute their life work and be fairly compensated."
ok, its 2058 and ip law is dead. you just wrote "harry potter and the toilet gnomes". a gazillion kids around the world read it electronically. you get $0
are you unfairly compensated?
well, now you are a world famous author idolized by most kids in the world. thats a lot of power and fame. how does that power and fame get turned into $? lots of ways: autographed copies, private readings, personalized content for rich fans, etc. you could make a tidy little enjoyable living doing that
furthermore, how much $ did albert einstein get for general relativity? how much money did shakespeare get for hamlet?
what do they get?
they get immortality. respect from their peers. renown, love, admiration past their lifetimes
how do those qualities figure into your calculation of "fair compensation"?
in other words, there are more motivations in this world than just $. that if no money were ever guranteed again for any work of art, guess what: art would go right on being made. because anyone who is really producing art, is tapping into something that isn't motivated by money in the first place, and is rewarded with something more valuable than money in the end
and you STILL get related revenue streams to make you quite comfortably rich
ip law is only dead in spaces where what is created is easily and rapidly distributed, most obviously, as digital media
in other words, i can send 100 copies of a book, a song, or, soon enough, a movie, easily on my home pc to anyone else in the world. there's no more bottle neck of a printing press, a vinyl pressing plant, or a film spooler anymore. its all digital. the internet did that
meanwhile, you can't consume viagra digitally: you need a chemical plant. i can't put viagra in my shared folder and some guys in osaka and lagos and samarkhand gets a viagra. i'm being pedantic, but you see what i mean now
ip law still works well then when the distributors are a small, slow subset of players, usually and obviously having to do with the creation of real world goods
the lessons of ip law and music then are completely unrelated to ip law issues governing the creation fo anything in the real world, such as pills
so you're "canonical ip problem" isn't canonical at all
ip laws never rewarded creators. it rewarded distributors. one hit musical wonders throughout the 70s and 80s signed away their rights for pennies, were given free rides on corporate jets for a few months, then utterly forgotten about. bands like the beatles and prince got to be powerful because they became popular enough over long enough of a time that they took on the rules of the distributors, and became part of the machinery. but the vast majority of musical creation was never rewarded in real sense that you mean
so the idea ip rewarding creators is a nice idealistic selling point, but it never actually works that way. the rules of power favors the distributors, so they merely shade and juggle the legalese that the ip laws serve them instead of the creators
this leads us to 2 conclusions:
1. destroying ip doesn't actually impoverish creators
2. creators can still tour- you can't distrubte a concert tour on the web. creators can still whore for advertising. creators can be sponsored by corporate masters to make corporate product. and creators can simply enjoy their fame. is money really the only thing that motivates people to create music?
so its a better world without ip. its not like music will suddenly disappear. cheap opo like britney spears and justin timberlake won't even disappear: they'll simply be hired by corporations to produce product that is used for advertising, brand building, etc.
the desire to create music is not dependent upon financial concerns. music predates ip law, duh. most kids pick up the guitar to impress chicks. now if you said making music means you could never seduce a woman ever again, then yeah, music is dead. otherwise, no ip law? no problem. full steam ahead
had some unintended consequences
it made books cheap, leading to better educated commoners, leading to the creation of a middle class, leading to the idea of democracy and equality
i'm obviously broadly glossing over the historical details, but the lesson is that the printing press allowed for the realization of a number of previously impossible and unforseen societal changes
whatever the internet is going to do society in the realm of unintended consequences, one is sizing up pretty obvious:
the invalidation of the concept of intellectual property
intellectual property works when only a small number of players distribute data. it takes a lot to run a vinyl pressing plant, and easy to find and shut one down that doesn't play by the rules. but when every single person is a one man effortless data distribution factory, then getting everyone to play by the rules of the game becomes impossible to enforce
such that there is no more game. the idea of intellectual property simply ceases to be a valid concept. if it gets out on the web, it stays there. and anything not on the web is given a strong incentive to get on there. witness the imbroglio over guns n roses chinese democracy album recently. once its out there, you can't take it back, and it is extremely easy and anonymous to get out there
what can you enforce in such an environment? say the *AAssholes actually get their way and get all of their draconian laws passed. who cares?
do they honestly believe anything will change? the technology will simply treat their laws like damage, and route around them. this is what the internet was made to do
go for it *AAssholes, give the laws your best shot. why do you believe any legal structure will work to contain the internet? or, i guess the next step is: break the internet. destroy what makes the internet compelling and useful in order to preserve a dying business model
heh, had to open my big mouth
for your predicaments, you never get out of your predicaments
blame yourself, and you develop skills for dealing with your problems, and then you move on
but if you blame others, you are stuck in the rut of victimhood forever
wait, what do they mean by raised eyebrows?
i understand why tidal pools can be thought of as interesting chemical incubators for life with all of the heating and cooling, wetting and drying that goes on, but a lot of other completely common and normal processes that can take place on a moonless planet can also lead to such incubators as well. waves, daily temperature variations, seasonal fluctuations, geography, etc.
the moon does make us an interesting little quasi double planet system. but i think that that uniqueness does not go hand in hand with our planet's other unique trait, life. correlation is not causation looms large in my mind on this idea that the moon gave the earth life. no, the earth's chemical makeup, temperature, and atmospheric pressure putting us near water's triple point, with a lot of water around: that gave us life. every other detail seems secondary and not mandatory
if germany prevents you from reading nazi literature, it is the same KIND of censorship as china not allowing you to read any criticism of the government whatsoever. however, as you can obviously see, the DEGREE AND SCALE of the censorship is hugely different. you can still read tons of media criticizing the government in germany
likewise, preventing you from watching women perform blowjobs on guys in the bushes is the same KIND of sexual morality enforcement as muslim fundamentalists wrapping women from head to toe. however, it is obviously to a much greater DEGREE AND SCALE. you can go to any city in the usa and watch women walk around in tube tops and miniskirts
i am not defending the censorship of the pornography websites. but i am saying that it is a much more minor transgression on your freedom than what goes on in fundamentalist muslim countries. and that matters
in other words, we don't have to be a perfect society in order to criticize societies that are a lot lower on the scale of freedom
so many times you will see criticism of say, chinese censorship, and then someone responds "yeah well, fox news spouts propaganda, so its the same thing!"
no, it is not the same thing at all
and simply because fox news exists does not mean we have to stop criticizing china. you can read any damn media you want in the usa, form any country. in china, you can't see or read anything that remotely criticizes the government. and if you criticize the government in china, you are subject to punishment. do you think twice about criticizing gw bush? no. that matters a hell of a lot more than fox news existing or not
sp if another society commits a crime to a much greater order of magnitude, they are perfectly valid targets for criticism, even if your own society engages in the same sort of crime, TO A MUCH LESSER DEGREE AND SCALE
otherwise, the most liberal society in the world, with the teensiest bit of social enforcement, cannot criticize the most oppressive regime on the world. of course it can. of course it SHOULD
some people just have absolutely ridiculous, impossible standards before you are allowed to criticize others. this speaks volumes about their own character flaws, but it says nothing about a real and valid basis for criticizing others in the real world
no, you do not have to be a saint before you can criticize others. if your society's crimes are much less than another society's crimes, you have every right and moral authority to criticize the much worse society. NO society can ever be perfect. so expecting someone to be perfect ebfore they can criticize simply means there will be no progress possible in this world. its an impossible standard to live up to
so frankly, your words:
"If we are enforcing our opinions on obscenity on others, we are little different than the Islamists who are enforcing their belief that women showing any skin are being obscene."
is complete and utter bullshit
we are VERY different, even if we slid a hell of whole lot on the scale of censorship and freedom, we'd still be a lot more free than say press freedoms in china or russia or personal freedoms in saudi arabia or iran
and we have every right and moral authority to criticize those societies for that fact, because of the concepts of DEGREE AND SCALE
it makes a difference
it does
learn that
if you load the message queue with spam, the packets tend to bottleneck around the spam until the spam in the queue is exhausted
on the plus side the spam tends to be consumed rather than multiply
however, the message trail only gets slimier during and after spam bottlenecking
"she's a slut, no she's a slut!"
it's not from culture, it's from basic female psychology: the female that is promsicuous puts all the females at risk because their investment in a male for caregiving duties is under threat to be stolen
the group polices the behavior of the individuals to keep the sexual power in line
of course infidelity continues, its just secret and quiet
so yeah, we screw a lot, just like bonobos, but its all hush hush, that's the big difference: not that sex doesn't occur, but that sex doesn't occur OPENLY
we're the thinking apes. as such, it naturally follows that we're also the ones to lie the most. a better name for homo sapiens is homo hypocritus
but there is no better life in telling the truth about sex, about having our sexuality in public: it just runs too roughshod of our craven psychosexual motivations, we set ourselves up to be attacked by those just acting the way homo sapiens act about sex for selfish genetic reasons
so we continue in our special secret, lying homo sapiens way with our sexuality. we screw, a lot, we do. it's just that this particular ape does it secretly