I get you for the most part. I would argue that it doesn't take a $50k salary to afford a few CDs. 15 year old kids don't have bills to pay, ya know?
I agree, though, that piracy is going to continue to happen, but not for the reasons you stated. I'd bet that most of the piracy comes from people who have no legitimate gripe with the RIAA; they simply don't feel like paying.
"i'll bet on the legions of poor, smart, technically sophisticated, highly motivated teenagers"
An unwillingness to pay doesn't imply poverty. If you substitute "greedy" or "cheap" for "poor", I think you'll be talking about a far greater number of people.
It will indeed be interesting to see what happens in the next few years. If you (or somebody) is trying to bring the RIAA down, there's better ways of doing so (read the reply to my own post in this thread).
In fact, pirating only helps the RIAA make its case to congress when they shop for protective legislation. It demonstrates that there are a lot of people who want their product who aren't paying for it.
On the other hand, if you stop buying AND pirating RIAA music, the above case evaporates.
If you want to affect real change, attacking demand will yeild far greater results than attacking the bottom line.
"this is what i propose: all music files free, bands make their money with live appearances and corporate sponsorships, no middle man anywhere"
Of course, you don't get to make that decision for anybody but yourself. If a musician/band wants to make money in other ways, who are you to tell them they are wrong to do so?
Wrong, they exist to make money for their stakeholders.
"Until companies figure that out, you don't use them; you pirate until the companies figure out that trying to own you is a turn off"
The free market gives consumers a choice: whether or not the good they want is worth the asking price. If you decide the good is not worth the asking price, that does not entitle you to that good for free.
"don't agree to any arrangement that makes you subject to something proprietary"
That's fine, but it still doesn't justify copyright infringement.
And if you're one of those people who compares your gripe with the RIAA to womens' sufferage or the civil rights movement, you are badly in need of some perspective.
Whether they had a valid trademark infringement case or not is better left to lawyers. What Microsoft intended to do with the name has no bearing on whether or not this guy was infringing on a Microsoft trademark.
This guy could have covered his ass and consulted a lawyer before signing away his rights to the name. That he didn't isn't Microsoft's fault.
Then what are you saying? That content providers should only be paid once for their work? (going by your sig) Who then is responsible for that one-time payment? How exactly is that supposed to work?
"Just like royalty in the middle ages who thought they had a god given right to rule over the serfs."
Except the "serfs" of your analogy don't depend on the "royalty" for their basic survival. If people didn't want the product that content producers are selling, then the media companies wouldn't be so rich. Nobody is forced to buy their product; the RIAA/MPAA aren't "abusing" anybody. Just because YOU don't feel like paying the same as everyone else doesn't entitle you to their product for free.
I suspect, though, that your stance is more about sticking it to the greedy Man than it is about reasonable goals like fair use.
"Or the freeloaders acting in movies who actually think it's reasonable they should be paid millions of dollars for a few hours work because of broken IP law?"
WTF does IP law have to do with the $$$ actors/actresses are being paid?
"Surely you don't mean the freeloaders who download copies of content and probably wouldn't have bought anything anyway?"
Are you one of those people who believes that such "content" (music, movies, software, etc.) should be free to everyone, and that the producers of said content shouldn't be compensated for their work?
Get a clue; the media industries aren't charities.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a clause being considered for the GPL 3.0 that would forbid companies that patent software or use DRM from using software licensed under the GPL 3.0??
That kind of restriction seems to have more to do with pushing an agenda/ideology and less to do with making information free.
The BSD license is truly "free". The GPL 3.0 smells more and more like a restriction-laden indeological agenda.
If you believe that a blog poster is a paid astro-turfer, you have the right and means to call them out on it, or for that matter respond however you please. That the shills might outnumber you doesn't impede you in any way from expressing your views. If they are so overwhelming that they compromise the conversation, you have the right and means to take your views elsewhere.
"...would allow Google to serve up relevant ads based on: the program you are watching, your search history, the type of emails you have received in the past 24 hours (excluding spam hopefully), or anything else Google can track. Imagine the possibilities..."
I am, and I'm not terribly thrilled with them.
Is the typical Slashdotter concerned with the sheer volume of information that is being collected about people by a single corporation? I'm afraid I'm not going to shed my skepticism just because Google claims to "do no evil".
I respect what you have accomplished in life. You should recognize, however, that our current capitalist system allows you to be charitable out of your own good heart, whereas socialism (and other forced wealth-redistribution ideologies) compells it. That's the difference between freedom and tyrrany.
Even though I do lean in that Libertarian direction as you suggest, I try not to dismiss or disparage alternate views.
Let's say somebody sues (an easy target here) R.J. Reynolds and winds a judgement that far surpasses the company's assets. In your world (and correct me if I'm wrong) everyone who invested in the company, including other companies and fund brokerages, should be held financially responsible for the balance?
Or another example. Random Company A goes bankrupt, and has millions of dollars in debt. You would go after the company's investors to cover that debt?
Under such a system, why the hell would ANYBODY want to subject themselves to that kind of risk??
Slashdot Mirror
I get you for the most part. I would argue that it doesn't take a $50k salary to afford a few CDs. 15 year old kids don't have bills to pay, ya know?
I agree, though, that piracy is going to continue to happen, but not for the reasons you stated. I'd bet that most of the piracy comes from people who have no legitimate gripe with the RIAA; they simply don't feel like paying.
"i'll bet on the legions of poor, smart, technically sophisticated, highly motivated teenagers"
An unwillingness to pay doesn't imply poverty. If you substitute "greedy" or "cheap" for "poor", I think you'll be talking about a far greater number of people.
It will indeed be interesting to see what happens in the next few years. If you (or somebody) is trying to bring the RIAA down, there's better ways of doing so (read the reply to my own post in this thread).
In fact, pirating only helps the RIAA make its case to congress when they shop for protective legislation. It demonstrates that there are a lot of people who want their product who aren't paying for it.
On the other hand, if you stop buying AND pirating RIAA music, the above case evaporates.
If you want to affect real change, attacking demand will yeild far greater results than attacking the bottom line.
"this is what i propose: all music files free, bands make their money with live appearances and corporate sponsorships, no middle man anywhere"
Of course, you don't get to make that decision for anybody but yourself. If a musician/band wants to make money in other ways, who are you to tell them they are wrong to do so?
"sound crazy? welcome to modern day china"
Ahh yes, a model for fair trade and human rights!
"companies exist to serve the consumer"
Wrong, they exist to make money for their stakeholders.
"Until companies figure that out, you don't use them; you pirate until the companies figure out that trying to own you is a turn off"
The free market gives consumers a choice: whether or not the good they want is worth the asking price. If you decide the good is not worth the asking price, that does not entitle you to that good for free.
"don't agree to any arrangement that makes you subject to something proprietary"
That's fine, but it still doesn't justify copyright infringement.
And if you're one of those people who compares your gripe with the RIAA to womens' sufferage or the civil rights movement, you are badly in need of some perspective.
Microsoft didn't "deceive" anybody.
Whether they had a valid trademark infringement case or not is better left to lawyers. What Microsoft intended to do with the name has no bearing on whether or not this guy was infringing on a Microsoft trademark.
This guy could have covered his ass and consulted a lawyer before signing away his rights to the name. That he didn't isn't Microsoft's fault.
Companies giving their products names that inspire confidence and suggest value?? What has this evil, greedy capitalistic society come to?!?
"I did not say that."
Then what are you saying? That content providers should only be paid once for their work? (going by your sig) Who then is responsible for that one-time payment? How exactly is that supposed to work?
"Just like royalty in the middle ages who thought they had a god given right to rule over the serfs."
Except the "serfs" of your analogy don't depend on the "royalty" for their basic survival. If people didn't want the product that content producers are selling, then the media companies wouldn't be so rich. Nobody is forced to buy their product; the RIAA/MPAA aren't "abusing" anybody. Just because YOU don't feel like paying the same as everyone else doesn't entitle you to their product for free.
I suspect, though, that your stance is more about sticking it to the greedy Man than it is about reasonable goals like fair use.
"Or the freeloaders acting in movies who actually think it's reasonable they should be paid millions of dollars for a few hours work because of broken IP law?"
WTF does IP law have to do with the $$$ actors/actresses are being paid?
"Surely you don't mean the freeloaders who download copies of content and probably wouldn't have bought anything anyway?"
Are you one of those people who believes that such "content" (music, movies, software, etc.) should be free to everyone, and that the producers of said content shouldn't be compensated for their work?
Get a clue; the media industries aren't charities.
"They can't change the fact that their business model is becoming obsolete."
Their business model is only half of it. Freeloaders are the other half.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a clause being considered for the GPL 3.0 that would forbid companies that patent software or use DRM from using software licensed under the GPL 3.0??
That kind of restriction seems to have more to do with pushing an agenda/ideology and less to do with making information free.
The BSD license is truly "free". The GPL 3.0 smells more and more like a restriction-laden indeological agenda.
Authors of GPL code aren't being screwed by any company that uses their code in accordance with the terms of the license.
If someone doesn't want their software to be used in commercial software, they shouldn't release it under the GPL.
You forget that the FSF zealots believe that commercial software is inherantly evil.
If the clause discussed earlier on Slashdot is included, the GPL 3.0 will do more to hurt the FOSS movement than help.
For the sake of truly free programming, we have to tear down the zealots speaking on our behalf.
If you believe that a blog poster is a paid astro-turfer, you have the right and means to call them out on it, or for that matter respond however you please. That the shills might outnumber you doesn't impede you in any way from expressing your views. If they are so overwhelming that they compromise the conversation, you have the right and means to take your views elsewhere.
"The amendment would actually suppress free speech to the extent that independent views could be drowned out with politically financed astro-turfing."
How, exactly?
That's all fine and dandy, but please get back to me when Apple releases a version of OS X that runs (flawlessly, mind you) on PC hardware.
"...would allow Google to serve up relevant ads based on: the program you are watching, your search history, the type of emails you have received in the past 24 hours (excluding spam hopefully), or anything else Google can track. Imagine the possibilities..."
I am, and I'm not terribly thrilled with them.
Is the typical Slashdotter concerned with the sheer volume of information that is being collected about people by a single corporation? I'm afraid I'm not going to shed my skepticism just because Google claims to "do no evil".
Tony Blair was re-elected, wasn't he?
Where were those 2 million on election day?
I imagine that that same cynicism prevents you from voting too.
Did you ever consider that such cynicism breeds apathy, and perpetuates the very problems you lament?
Get off your ass and take a little responsibility.
I respect what you have accomplished in life. You should recognize, however, that our current capitalist system allows you to be charitable out of your own good heart, whereas socialism (and other forced wealth-redistribution ideologies) compells it. That's the difference between freedom and tyrrany.
Even though I do lean in that Libertarian direction as you suggest, I try not to dismiss or disparage alternate views.
" More Information is always useful, regardless of where it comes from."
You mean like GNAA posts and Goatse re-directs? If you want reasons to filter "information", you need only to read Slashdot at -1.
Right, because the anonymity of the Internet brings out only the best in people, especially when they have an opinion!
"but there's something screwy with the notion that people would do something simply for profit rather than the benefit of society."
I'm guessing someone else is paying your living expenses for you. Am I right?
So let me get this straight.
Let's say somebody sues (an easy target here) R.J. Reynolds and winds a judgement that far surpasses the company's assets. In your world (and correct me if I'm wrong) everyone who invested in the company, including other companies and fund brokerages, should be held financially responsible for the balance?
Or another example. Random Company A goes bankrupt, and has millions of dollars in debt. You would go after the company's investors to cover that debt?
Under such a system, why the hell would ANYBODY want to subject themselves to that kind of risk??