Because CNN and Time Warner have no interest in making movie downloading as unattractive as possible, and have no intent to word their stories that put the worst possible slant on torrent users, No siree, Bob.
"Sorry, but they didn't tell us about it," the woman at the counter said when I presented my print-out. Everyone here, call ahead to see whether or not your BR is participating in this.
As for me, since Dunkin Donuts is the same company as BR, I'm taking my business to Krispy Kreme and Cold Stone Cremery instead.
I immensely enjoyed Snow Crash and The Diamond Age as offering both believable perils and possiblities for the present and future world(s). However, as a scholar in a admittedly little-known interdisciplinary field called Social Foundations of Education, I took your treatment of humanities academics in Cryptonomicon as an unfair slap in the face. I felt that you were trying to "boost up" Randy Waterhouse's refusal to acknowledge that his race, gender, and previous educational opportunities might have had something to do with his position in life in order to play to many (if not most) of your readers' attitudes. Maybe this is unfair too, but hackers and even run-of-the-mill coders are notoriously hostile to the acknowledgment of social inequality, especially in ways that implicate them and morally demand their participation in reducing it, however minimal. Instead, taking potshots at the messengers as pseudo-intellectual pricks who would put make-up on a WWII soldier's face for a "War as Text" conference poster seemed to be a way to duck the issue.
At any rate, I'm not a literature scholar, and I am a proud product of a Southeastern state university. I consider myself a die-hard geek in my love of sci-fi, fantasy, anime, technology, i.e., the usual categories of interest. Yet I saw myself in those Bay-area/Ivy League literary scholars. The message I got was that there was no room for me amongst the "real" movers and shakers because I'm an academic who studies people, not a hacker running a business. I felt marginalized, tossed aside, and yes, hurt because an author who I admired and respected so much just told me that my type not only doesn't matter in this new world, but doesn't get it.
So my question is, if I'm taking Randy's dinnertime chat with the academics entirely the wrong way (and I hope I am), then is there a place for humanities and social science academics in the worlds that you envision? If not, then what exactly makes us irrelevant, and where are we to go?
I'm a huge supporter of tough drunk driving laws--I get absolutely furious when I see fatal drunk driving accidents where the driver had been arrested 5, 10 sometimes even 15 times for drunk driving.
A wise judge once said that we should put those we genuinely fear in jail, not those that just make us angry.
If you genuinely fear a drunk driver like you would a murderer or a rapist, fine, but I'm sensing a bit of the rage quotient here.
Neither bards nor their music could be infinitely replicated for all to share and enjoy. However, their medieval patrons, like the RIAA had a large sway in what the laws of the land were, and who would be subject to them.
When guns are held to Puffy's head with demands that he sing, then I'll concede the point to you.
I guess the difference between us is that I don't consider the present world "real", but a social construct that benefits the powerful at the expense of everyone else. Only that it's considered "real" and natural by most people is a testament to hegemony's success. When I say, "But until then," I cannot help but finish the sentence with, "let's do what we can to make it happen," rather than, "let's do our best with the world as it is."
I would want certainly more than 1/10 of the people to think about the issues I raise. The world I'm working for cannot come about without education and reflection; that might explain why I'm getting a Ph.D. in education other than dumb luck (that's another story in itself). The goal of file-trading cannot be simply getting "free stuff", but to allow others to share in a culture that encourages critical reflection and a sense of community - two things the RIAA and capitalists in general would rather not encourage among the populace. This, I strongly believe, is far more important than the sake of any quality product, or any economy for that matter. I simply find it sad that too many have confused means with ends, but it's a good launching point for discussion at the same time.
I think you've summed up yours and the rest of Slashdot's "anti-kiddie" bloc as a whole pretty well. Just try to keep in mind that they're not all on the make, and if their favorite artist ends up begging on the street because of file-trading (heh), let them know. Many would be thrilled to feed them and let them sleep on their couch until they get back on their feet.;-) j/k
I can see where you're coming from, but I think a lot of the frustration from both sides is coming from looking at this specific aspect of an economic system and not the whole system.
The "Slashdot kiddie", an unfortunate stereotype, wants information to be free, but at the same time is frustrated because (and this is one point where we disagree) s/he recognizes that the original makers have to be paid. This builds up much in the way of inner tension because they yield to the legitimacy of capitalist economics on principle. At the same time, they find that it cannot work for them personally because they see that this aspect of the system, reproducable products, does not follow the traditional capitalist model that they accept. That it's "stealing" doesn't compute, and really shouldn't because of the intricacies involved. This I think partly explains the defensive sloganeering of the "Slashdot kiddie". They're not (mostly) chanting to get a free CD. Rather, they're ill-equiped to challenge capitalism because they lack a theory that explains this tension and can therefore only fall back on "information wants to be free" without getting at the core socio-economic issues that, I feel, actually support file-trading. Therefore, they are rendered illegitimate thieves by the culture.
Likewise, content producers like you and me (a grad student likely to get published in the near future) may just see that people are not paying us to use our work, costing us some of our livelihoods and in effect stealing from us. That we're measuring our achievement in terms of dollars rather than the heightened circulation of our ideas says something about our capitalist culture, but it still begs the question of how to feed and house our families. We, just like the "Slashdot kiddie", are caught up in our own inner tension, this time between our personal needs and demanding compensation for a reproducable product. However, morals against demanding money for something that could be freely available are overshadowed by capitalist morals to pay for everything one uses. Thanks to that system of thought that Antonio Gramsci would call "hegemony", we "win", and our incentive for profit is legitmitized over the public's incentive to share information. We are freed from examining our own inner tension, but only for a while.
Capitalism, an economic system that perverts the sharing of information that has existed since the dawn of human language, must find a way to resolve both the inner and external tensions of the "Slashdot kiddie" and the content producer if it is to survive in a digital world. Giving the public tangible incentives to reward content producers for products outside of the content itself is the clearest way for capitalism in a digital society to survive. Else, it's not a far leap to make the case for a socialist "each according to his or her need" ideal wherein content producers would be paid according to those needs by, in state socialist terms, the government, or in a true socialist system, human empathy to help those who produce content out of love for the craft and the human need to share with others.
"Yeah right, granola. Take your hippie 'live on love' crap elsewhere. People don't work like that." In our current system of alienation, this would be correct. But that's just it - our *current* constructed system that most accept as human nature, a necessary evil, just "as is", but most importantly, impossible to change. My point is that you cannot successfully engage in a debate about file-sharing unless you address the system as a whole. Else, both sides will just run around in their circles of contradiction because they accept the same system that always privileges one side and delegitimitizes the other while solving nothing.
Actually, I think that people have somewhat of a moral obligation *to* rip things and share them with others for the public good of information access. Granted our ethical systems diverge widely on this, but I think calling it "pure greed" is a bit out of line. Why are you so angry?
Yes, I'm close (less than 2 years) to finishing my Ph.D., but I...HAVE...HAD IT!! If this bill passes, I promise that I'm quitting university and fleeing to Canada, New Zealand, or some other hospitable nation and never setting foot in the U.S. ever again! I'll finish my degree elsewhere, even if it means starting from scratch.
This is absolute loonacy. I know 1933 Germany when I see it, Godwin's Law be damned!
Then who is going to stop it if not the Supreme Court? The populace isn't going to vote in an election based upon the issue of, of all things, copyright law! Even most of us here on/. aren't going to vote on a candidate based upon this single issue. This is essentially the SCOTUS saying, "Yeah, it sucks, but what are you gonna do?"
Okay, maybe in some alternate universe where geeks set the public agenda, people are pissed off enough about this issue that they'll vote out the Berman's and Hatch's of their Congress. But now, back to planet Earth - people don't vote based on this stuff, and the SCOTUS knows it. They should seriously get some loose constructionist blood through their veins and get back to defending the public interest; but with Bush appointees, I don't see that happening.
Then they'll become a menace to society at large. By having wasted potential and a lower quality of life, the spill-over costs of increased health care costs, lower community involvement, lower income (and hence lower tax revenue), increased domestic violence, deficient attention to children, increased alcoholism, disorderly conduct, not to even mention the humanitarian concerns start to accrue. Then you will really see people not care about the law when they have less incentive not to violate it if their life's in the shitter. These things are proven to increase when you build an underclass of people. Ask any sociologist: having a decent, reaffirming job is a huge deterrent to these things.
Whether you like it or not, someone's problem of not being able to meet their potential as a human being becomes everybody's problem in the end.
If you're one of those "hang 'em high" types who have absolutely no regard for people after serving a criminal sentence, read no further. It would just be lost on you.
Do you realize the implications of what you're saying, whether or not it is the reality of things? How is anyone supposed to put their life back together after being released from incarceration or probation if everyone shuns them? This creates a permanent underclass of people who very likely have something positive to contribute to society. The costs of a prior mistake, or worse, of being convicted under laws that make no sense would be, and are too high for anyone to bear in a purportedly civil society.
Under a capitalist system, your scenario makes sense, but I think it shows us one of the flaws of such a system that puts scarlet letters on people out of selfish interest.
I looks like they're seeking legal aid from the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. If the little guy can't defend himself in court against the big boys, then there should be someone else who can. They also protect Japanese and American manga artists and sellers. I joined, and so should you.
Will this now result in a pre-/. effect? Maybe the subscribers will be nice enough to mirror/.-ed sites on their own sites before the rush, but I'm not holding my breath.
Between encouraging people to act out violence on a TV rather than on the street, and these numbers refuting the "modchips cut into sales" arguments, I think we have the next crime-control device on our hands. Beats anything Ashcroft would come up with.
Slashdot Mirror
If anyone enters, looks threatening and asks, just reply, "MASTER BLASTER RUNS BARTERTOWN!" Works like a charm.
All I use my analog TV for is watching stuff I downloaded to my computer anyway.
Prices only drop when you have competition, and copyright on non-interchangable goods means you never have competition.
Thank you! Thank you for saying in one sentence what I've tried to explain to defenders of a broken system for years.
Because CNN and Time Warner have no interest in making movie downloading as unattractive as possible, and have no intent to word their stories that put the worst possible slant on torrent users, No siree, Bob.
"Sorry, but they didn't tell us about it," the woman at the counter said when I presented my print-out. Everyone here, call ahead to see whether or not your BR is participating in this.
As for me, since Dunkin Donuts is the same company as BR, I'm taking my business to Krispy Kreme and Cold Stone Cremery instead.
I immensely enjoyed Snow Crash and The Diamond Age as offering both believable perils and possiblities for the present and future world(s). However, as a scholar in a admittedly little-known interdisciplinary field called Social Foundations of Education, I took your treatment of humanities academics in Cryptonomicon as an unfair slap in the face. I felt that you were trying to "boost up" Randy Waterhouse's refusal to acknowledge that his race, gender, and previous educational opportunities might have had something to do with his position in life in order to play to many (if not most) of your readers' attitudes. Maybe this is unfair too, but hackers and even run-of-the-mill coders are notoriously hostile to the acknowledgment of social inequality, especially in ways that implicate them and morally demand their participation in reducing it, however minimal. Instead, taking potshots at the messengers as pseudo-intellectual pricks who would put make-up on a WWII soldier's face for a "War as Text" conference poster seemed to be a way to duck the issue.
At any rate, I'm not a literature scholar, and I am a proud product of a Southeastern state university. I consider myself a die-hard geek in my love of sci-fi, fantasy, anime, technology, i.e., the usual categories of interest. Yet I saw myself in those Bay-area/Ivy League literary scholars. The message I got was that there was no room for me amongst the "real" movers and shakers because I'm an academic who studies people, not a hacker running a business. I felt marginalized, tossed aside, and yes, hurt because an author who I admired and respected so much just told me that my type not only doesn't matter in this new world, but doesn't get it.
So my question is, if I'm taking Randy's dinnertime chat with the academics entirely the wrong way (and I hope I am), then is there a place for humanities and social science academics in the worlds that you envision? If not, then what exactly makes us irrelevant, and where are we to go?
"the slashdot position on government" is easy to understand.
I think that's the human position on government. The rub comes from who has the consistent power to make thy will the law.
I'm a huge supporter of tough drunk driving laws--I get absolutely furious when I see fatal drunk driving accidents where the driver had been arrested 5, 10 sometimes even 15 times for drunk driving.
A wise judge once said that we should put those we genuinely fear in jail, not those that just make us angry.
If you genuinely fear a drunk driver like you would a murderer or a rapist, fine, but I'm sensing a bit of the rage quotient here.
Traditional Swiss neutrality, the chocolate, and Martina Hingis (nsfw).
;P
As part Swiss, I can say it ain't for the yodeling.
Actually, it's a triple entendre when you think about it.
Neither bards nor their music could be infinitely replicated for all to share and enjoy. However, their medieval patrons, like the RIAA had a large sway in what the laws of the land were, and who would be subject to them.
When guns are held to Puffy's head with demands that he sing, then I'll concede the point to you.
Not so much human nature as attributing to others the greed they have in themselves, restrained only by what the law allows them to get away with.
RIAA_can_lick_my_sweaty_balls@KaZaa doesn't match. Safe for now!
I guess the difference between us is that I don't consider the present world "real", but a social construct that benefits the powerful at the expense of everyone else. Only that it's considered "real" and natural by most people is a testament to hegemony's success. When I say, "But until then," I cannot help but finish the sentence with, "let's do what we can to make it happen," rather than, "let's do our best with the world as it is."
;-) j/k
I would want certainly more than 1/10 of the people to think about the issues I raise. The world I'm working for cannot come about without education and reflection; that might explain why I'm getting a Ph.D. in education other than dumb luck (that's another story in itself). The goal of file-trading cannot be simply getting "free stuff", but to allow others to share in a culture that encourages critical reflection and a sense of community - two things the RIAA and capitalists in general would rather not encourage among the populace. This, I strongly believe, is far more important than the sake of any quality product, or any economy for that matter. I simply find it sad that too many have confused means with ends, but it's a good launching point for discussion at the same time.
I think you've summed up yours and the rest of Slashdot's "anti-kiddie" bloc as a whole pretty well. Just try to keep in mind that they're not all on the make, and if their favorite artist ends up begging on the street because of file-trading (heh), let them know. Many would be thrilled to feed them and let them sleep on their couch until they get back on their feet.
Take care, Brave Guy.
I can see where you're coming from, but I think a lot of the frustration from both sides is coming from looking at this specific aspect of an economic system and not the whole system.
The "Slashdot kiddie", an unfortunate stereotype, wants information to be free, but at the same time is frustrated because (and this is one point where we disagree) s/he recognizes that the original makers have to be paid. This builds up much in the way of inner tension because they yield to the legitimacy of capitalist economics on principle. At the same time, they find that it cannot work for them personally because they see that this aspect of the system, reproducable products, does not follow the traditional capitalist model that they accept. That it's "stealing" doesn't compute, and really shouldn't because of the intricacies involved. This I think partly explains the defensive sloganeering of the "Slashdot kiddie". They're not (mostly) chanting to get a free CD. Rather, they're ill-equiped to challenge capitalism because they lack a theory that explains this tension and can therefore only fall back on "information wants to be free" without getting at the core socio-economic issues that, I feel, actually support file-trading. Therefore, they are rendered illegitimate thieves by the culture.
Likewise, content producers like you and me (a grad student likely to get published in the near future) may just see that people are not paying us to use our work, costing us some of our livelihoods and in effect stealing from us. That we're measuring our achievement in terms of dollars rather than the heightened circulation of our ideas says something about our capitalist culture, but it still begs the question of how to feed and house our families. We, just like the "Slashdot kiddie", are caught up in our own inner tension, this time between our personal needs and demanding compensation for a reproducable product. However, morals against demanding money for something that could be freely available are overshadowed by capitalist morals to pay for everything one uses. Thanks to that system of thought that Antonio Gramsci would call "hegemony", we "win", and our incentive for profit is legitmitized over the public's incentive to share information. We are freed from examining our own inner tension, but only for a while.
Capitalism, an economic system that perverts the sharing of information that has existed since the dawn of human language, must find a way to resolve both the inner and external tensions of the "Slashdot kiddie" and the content producer if it is to survive in a digital world. Giving the public tangible incentives to reward content producers for products outside of the content itself is the clearest way for capitalism in a digital society to survive. Else, it's not a far leap to make the case for a socialist "each according to his or her need" ideal wherein content producers would be paid according to those needs by, in state socialist terms, the government, or in a true socialist system, human empathy to help those who produce content out of love for the craft and the human need to share with others.
"Yeah right, granola. Take your hippie 'live on love' crap elsewhere. People don't work like that." In our current system of alienation, this would be correct. But that's just it - our *current* constructed system that most accept as human nature, a necessary evil, just "as is", but most importantly, impossible to change. My point is that you cannot successfully engage in a debate about file-sharing unless you address the system as a whole. Else, both sides will just run around in their circles of contradiction because they accept the same system that always privileges one side and delegitimitizes the other while solving nothing.
Actually, I think that people have somewhat of a moral obligation *to* rip things and share them with others for the public good of information access. Granted our ethical systems diverge widely on this, but I think calling it "pure greed" is a bit out of line. Why are you so angry?
Yes, I'm close (less than 2 years) to finishing my Ph.D., but I...HAVE...HAD IT!! If this bill passes, I promise that I'm quitting university and fleeing to Canada, New Zealand, or some other hospitable nation and never setting foot in the U.S. ever again! I'll finish my degree elsewhere, even if it means starting from scratch.
This is absolute loonacy. I know 1933 Germany when I see it, Godwin's Law be damned!
Then who is going to stop it if not the Supreme Court? The populace isn't going to vote in an election based upon the issue of, of all things, copyright law! Even most of us here on /. aren't going to vote on a candidate based upon this single issue. This is essentially the SCOTUS saying, "Yeah, it sucks, but what are you gonna do?"
Okay, maybe in some alternate universe where geeks set the public agenda, people are pissed off enough about this issue that they'll vote out the Berman's and Hatch's of their Congress. But now, back to planet Earth - people don't vote based on this stuff, and the SCOTUS knows it. They should seriously get some loose constructionist blood through their veins and get back to defending the public interest; but with Bush appointees, I don't see that happening.
I hate you, America. >:-(
Maybe they should start putting any backlogged 486 processors in Happy Meals.
Then they'll become a menace to society at large. By having wasted potential and a lower quality of life, the spill-over costs of increased health care costs, lower community involvement, lower income (and hence lower tax revenue), increased domestic violence, deficient attention to children, increased alcoholism, disorderly conduct, not to even mention the humanitarian concerns start to accrue. Then you will really see people not care about the law when they have less incentive not to violate it if their life's in the shitter. These things are proven to increase when you build an underclass of people. Ask any sociologist: having a decent, reaffirming job is a huge deterrent to these things.
Whether you like it or not, someone's problem of not being able to meet their potential as a human being becomes everybody's problem in the end.
If you're one of those "hang 'em high" types who have absolutely no regard for people after serving a criminal sentence, read no further. It would just be lost on you.
Do you realize the implications of what you're saying, whether or not it is the reality of things? How is anyone supposed to put their life back together after being released from incarceration or probation if everyone shuns them? This creates a permanent underclass of people who very likely have something positive to contribute to society. The costs of a prior mistake, or worse, of being convicted under laws that make no sense would be, and are too high for anyone to bear in a purportedly civil society.
Under a capitalist system, your scenario makes sense, but I think it shows us one of the flaws of such a system that puts scarlet letters on people out of selfish interest.
I looks like they're seeking legal aid from the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. If the little guy can't defend himself in court against the big boys, then there should be someone else who can. They also protect Japanese and American manga artists and sellers. I joined, and so should you.
This baby is poised to 'piss-off' Hollywood.
Or the Sony studio execs down the hall.
Will this now result in a pre-/. effect? Maybe the subscribers will be nice enough to mirror /.-ed sites on their own sites before the rush, but I'm not holding my breath.
Between encouraging people to act out violence on a TV rather than on the street, and these numbers refuting the "modchips cut into sales" arguments, I think we have the next crime-control device on our hands. Beats anything Ashcroft would come up with.