Apparently they're good enough to watch; just not good enough to pay for. Wouldn't it be great if our entire economy was based on such a subjective approach to value?
Freedom to drive a car means nothing if the exercise of such right excludes people who do not possess hand/eye coordination or the financial means to purchase a vehicle.
I just love posts like this. Some of us here are trying to portray ourselves as better than a bunch of copyright-violating freeloaders. Then somebody comes along and reassures the RIAA that their anti-piracy efforts are right on target.
From those of us who want to legitimately share files without trade groups or law enforcement breathing down our necks, thanks for nothing!
Yeah, I've read his crap. He goes on about how programmers should be allowed to make money from their work, but doesn't EVER explain how they are supposed to do so under a system in which their work is freely distributed.
Stallman et. al. aren't Open Source advocates. Free Software != Open Source. If Stallman had his way, nobody would make money from producing software since it would all be freely available.
For some, that's a worthwhile goal. However that's never been the purpose behind OSS.
The problem lies in determining who gets to define a "fair" price. Obviously, what the RIAA has decided is fair for said Beattles album ($30; I'll take your word for it) is much different from what many here have decided ($0).
So who is right? If we still have a capitalist economy (and last I checked, we do), both seller and buyer set the final price. If the price is too high, the buyer will not purchase the good, and the seller won't make money. This is especially true with such a non-essential good.
Oddly enough, nowhere in the whole market price equation is the assumption that the buyer is entitled to the good for free if he/she decides the price is too high.
Don't like the deal the RIAA is offering you? Don't buy it. Neither your opposition to the price, nor your moral objections to their business practice entitles you to their product for free.
Most people around here aren't honest enough with themselves to even consider the possibility that their actions are at least partially responsible for the RIAA's aggressive litigation. Don't expect them to change if you are equally unwilling.
To The United States Congress: We are the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). We love selling music and will gladly sell it for a fair price, but we are outraged by filesharers' tactics in acquiring our product without paying for it...
And yet here you (and your ilk) are, pissing and moaning about how the RIAA is unreasonable and unwilling to persue a mutually-beneficial compromise. Shame on you for ruining it for the rest of us.
See all those protests in Georgia over the law that will require people to prove their legal residency status to qualify for state welfare benefits? Who but those cheating the system would oppose such a law?
It's not about the "slippery slope", this is about deterring people who want to steal from honest taxpayers.
"Would you buy a car from someone who demanded that you waive all rights to sue, even if he deliberately comitted fraud?
Regardless of whether or not you'd be willing to agree to such a contract, it would be unenforcable on principle. A contract cannot waive criminal statutes.
Slashdot Mirror
"Sad but true."
No, that's called generalizing. And it's a poor substitute for an informed argument.
Apparently they're good enough to watch; just not good enough to pay for. Wouldn't it be great if our entire economy was based on such a subjective approach to value?
Freedom to drive a car means nothing if the exercise of such right excludes people who do not possess hand/eye coordination or the financial means to purchase a vehicle.
Even one of their founders has turned his back on them.
I just love posts like this. Some of us here are trying to portray ourselves as better than a bunch of copyright-violating freeloaders. Then somebody comes along and reassures the RIAA that their anti-piracy efforts are right on target.
From those of us who want to legitimately share files without trade groups or law enforcement breathing down our necks, thanks for nothing!
Inappropriate useage of apostrophes' makes my brain hurt too.
Yeah, I've read his crap. He goes on about how programmers should be allowed to make money from their work, but doesn't EVER explain how they are supposed to do so under a system in which their work is freely distributed.
Stallman et. al. aren't Open Source advocates. Free Software != Open Source. If Stallman had his way, nobody would make money from producing software since it would all be freely available.
For some, that's a worthwhile goal. However that's never been the purpose behind OSS.
Blah blah blah greedy blah blah blah Republican blah blah blah marijuana blah blah blah unrealistic blah blah blah vasted vote.
Now that that's out of the way, let's have some honest discussion about the merits of th ird parties, OK?
We need more practical, logical arguments in favor of free software and fewer ideological windbags who deal in absolutes.
If the GPL was about 100% freedom and choice, it would be called the BSD license.
The GPL (especially the latest draft) has less to do with freedom than it does promoting RMS' (and by proxy the FSF) personal ideology.
The problem lies in determining who gets to define a "fair" price. Obviously, what the RIAA has decided is fair for said Beattles album ($30; I'll take your word for it) is much different from what many here have decided ($0).
So who is right? If we still have a capitalist economy (and last I checked, we do), both seller and buyer set the final price. If the price is too high, the buyer will not purchase the good, and the seller won't make money. This is especially true with such a non-essential good.
Oddly enough, nowhere in the whole market price equation is the assumption that the buyer is entitled to the good for free if he/she decides the price is too high.
Don't like the deal the RIAA is offering you? Don't buy it. Neither your opposition to the price, nor your moral objections to their business practice entitles you to their product for free.
Most people around here aren't honest enough with themselves to even consider the possibility that their actions are at least partially responsible for the RIAA's aggressive litigation. Don't expect them to change if you are equally unwilling.
None of that money is going to the artists either. I thought a goal of the crusade against the RIAA was to get more $$ into artists' hands.
To The United States Congress: We are the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). We love selling music and will gladly sell it for a fair price, but we are outraged by filesharers' tactics in acquiring our product without paying for it...
Spin works both ways.
And yet here you (and your ilk) are, pissing and moaning about how the RIAA is unreasonable and unwilling to persue a mutually-beneficial compromise. Shame on you for ruining it for the rest of us.
You're under some illusion that mp3 downloading is about helping artists or "sticking it to the man"? How naive.
"I know it's a kind of slippery slope argument."
No, it's called creative speculation.
See all those protests in Georgia over the law that will require people to prove their legal residency status to qualify for state welfare benefits? Who but those cheating the system would oppose such a law?
It's not about the "slippery slope", this is about deterring people who want to steal from honest taxpayers.
How about something that blocks all Dvorak articles?
"If CS Majors made as much as doctors or lawyers, more people would take math and Computer science courses."
And more companies would avoid that increased cost through outsourcing.
My mistake, mod. Vista is not only finished, but available to buy and ready for thorough, objective review.
It's not done yet!
That would be true if the purpose of GNU/Linux was to replace Windows.
If...
"Would you buy a car from someone who demanded that you waive all rights to sue, even if he deliberately comitted fraud?
Regardless of whether or not you'd be willing to agree to such a contract, it would be unenforcable on principle. A contract cannot waive criminal statutes.
"Hey PRC, You arent winning any fans with this shit!"
You think China is trying to win fans?