If the qualifications for "royalty" have expanded to the point where they include people who insult the very society that gave them the opportunity and choice to become uninitiated, self-righteous brats, we are indeed decaying as a civilization.
I'm not saying that the MPAA necessarily should be boycotted, or that people shouldn't buy indie flicks. I'm just calling out those who DO think the MPAA should be boycotted to stick to their principles.
And no, balancing a diet of MPAA with Indie doesn't count, and neither does buying them used. Boycott means you don't buy any, period.
There are plenty of people who say (over and over again) that the MPAA is bad, but when movies like this come out, they have no problem with bending over for the industry with each regular, special, and extra-special version of a movie they put out. That's called hypocricy, and the fact that my post was modbombed in mere seconds only demonstrates (to me at least) that it touched a nerve on the very hypocrites I was addressing.
It's no surprise to me that they are armed with mod points to squash all dissenting opinion, or posts that correctly identify them.
Just remember folks, for every version of these LotR movies you buy, that's more money to the RIAA.
So are you MPAA-boycotters out there gonna stick to your guns and not buy ANY of these DVDs? Or are you going to set your principles aside and buy these movies.
"trapped in a mean little culture of cheap thrills and fast-food television"
And escaping into a computer game is somehow more noble or meaningful? Please give me a physical break, and dispense with the drama. He's not out feeding starving children, he's playing a video game.
I have no problem with people pointing out some of the negatives of our culture, but I'm afraid playing a video game doesn't elevate one above the 'sheep-le'.
"Red Hat shall give Customer written notice of any non-compliance, and Customer shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of such notice in which to make payment to Red Hat for any additional Installed Servers"
I don't know about you, but to me that sounds awfully like a corporate Windows lisence, where the customer is expected to pay for each server the software is installed on. I know it's not EXACTLY the same, but there will be plenty of people who will go to bat for RedHat when Microsoft (via the BSA) does pretty much the same thing.
You're right on there, and truthfully you got me thinking about the possibilities for an open-source-only IT solutions provider, but very soon afterward I discovered the first snag: Hardware.
When both schools and parents buy computers, they come with Windows (or MacOS) pre-installed, as well as some sort of service contract and warranty.
What I think would be the biggest hurdle would be to convince both the school and the parents that they should abandon the OS they paid for and switch to something very different. Not to mention that dumping the pre-installed OS would probably void any service contract or warranty that was also included in the price of the computer(s).
A great idea at first glance, but there are a lot of hurdles to overcome.
"Was it fair to take that livelihood away from them?"
If I recall correctly, it took a war to sort that all out. And even after that and 140 years later, there are still plenty of people who belive it wasn't fair.:)
However there is a huge moral difference (by today's standards anyway) between selling software packages and human beings. I think the day that selling software is seen as morally reprehensible (and I'm not talking specifically about Microsoft) is a long way off.
There are plenty of people (and dare I say many of them read and post on this very site) with the expertise to teach this kind of material, but who believe that an insecure system is an open invitation to wreak havoc on it. Hiring a responsible teacher is equally, if not more, important than making sure that the right messages are part of the cirriculum.
"However, nobody has a right to be compensated multiple times for the same work."
So an author and publisher should only be paid once for a book they produce, now matter how many copies of their work are sold? Would you find it OK if someone bought said book, made 200 copies of it, and gave it away to all of his friends who were unwilling to buy it themselves? The author and publisher aren't directly losing anything, so it's ok, right?
"You cannot base software policy on dealer livelihood unless you're willing to do the same for other things like illegal drugs."
I am willing to. My thoughts on the bullshit 'drug war' aside, you won't find drug users trying to justify not paying their dealers. Failing to pay them can be... unhealthy.
That said, I don't think that drug trade is analogous to the software industry, as currently it is illegal to deal in drugs. Find an appropriate comparison and I may be more receptive to your ideas.
"The assumption is that every student who downloads $20 000 worth of software would have bought it otherwise, which is not true."
What about the student who downloads $500 worth of games (roughly 9 or 10 games)? That's certainly a reasonable assumption, as well as the assumption that an average college student can afford 9 or 10 games. Are you saying that it is moral for a person to download $20,000 worth of software, but immoral to download $500? That's absurd.
What I find amusing is the real expensive software packages people use as examples that they couldn't normally afford it anway.
But what about games? We all know that a large portion of software piracy is games, which are generally priced in the $40 to $60 range. Certainly a reasonable and affordable price, so where's the justification for pirating games? Does that mean it's only moral to pirate stuff you can't afford?
In a capitialist economy, people and businesses have a right to be compensated for their work. That doesn't mean they have a right to profit or exist, but when someone uses their product or service, they have the right to be fairly compensated for it. If you don't think their price is fair, don't buy it, but don't take it either.
Unless, of course, you believe that everything should be distributed freely for the common good. But that's called Communism, and it doesn't work.
"stuff that people can't really afford, so they are technically losing money, since it wouldn't have been bought in the first place."
I assume you meant aren't.
Another popular argument that software piracy isn't bad as long as you can't afford to purchase the software. Nice try, but the end result is the same: you are using software that you haven't paid for. Whether or not you could have afforded what you have stolen is irrelevant.
"which in most cases is ethically and morally right"
I know the parent was a troll, but sadly a lot of people believe this.
The fundamental argument, whether you're willing to admit it or not, is that the creators of software (or music for that matter) should not be paid for their creations.
Whatever justification you believe is a valid defense for illegally obtaining software, it all comes down to the fact that the creator of that product is not being justly compensated. I don't care if nothing is PHYSICALLY being stolen, the fact remains that he is not being paid for it, and that's where the theft comes from.
If you were a developer whose livelihood depended on people purchasing your software, I'm sure you'd see this issue very differently.
Ahh yes, we can only hope that someday we will take home $.25 on the dollar to pay for a parental government that makes all of our decisions for us. We all know that beaurocracies become more efficient and effective as they grow and take more control of our lives.
Work harder! Someone on welfare is counting on you!
"How is a paper calender stuck in one place going to do that for you?"
It won't, and neither will a PDA if you haven't trained yourself to enter each and every assignment. As long as the discipline isn't there, neither a $5.00 calendar, nor a $200 PDA will help you. And which investment are you more prepared to lose?
Save your money and don't buy the hype. Just because you may look cool and all that with a $500 PDA, if you don't have any discipline, no chic gadget is going to get your act together for you.
If college freshmen want to really get their shit together, take notes on paper, and write down due dates on a calendar displayed in a prominent place in your dorm. Once that has become a habit, technology might make it easier, but until then, you have an expensive paperweight.
"If your city believes that the Golden Girls are the harem of Satan, it should be able to keep Golden Girl re-runs off their local stations."
That's funny, since when was an individual's right to choose what they wanted to watch/listen to, without a government entity filtering out "offensive" content, a Bad Thing(tm)?
Slashdot Mirror
...does my six-digit UIN still make me cool?
If the qualifications for "royalty" have expanded to the point where they include people who insult the very society that gave them the opportunity and choice to become uninitiated, self-righteous brats, we are indeed decaying as a civilization.
And no, balancing a diet of MPAA with Indie doesn't count, and neither does buying them used. Boycott means you don't buy any, period.
There are plenty of people who say (over and over again) that the MPAA is bad, but when movies like this come out, they have no problem with bending over for the industry with each regular, special, and extra-special version of a movie they put out. That's called hypocricy, and the fact that my post was modbombed in mere seconds only demonstrates (to me at least) that it touched a nerve on the very hypocrites I was addressing.
It's no surprise to me that they are armed with mod points to squash all dissenting opinion, or posts that correctly identify them.
So are you MPAA-boycotters out there gonna stick to your guns and not buy ANY of these DVDs? Or are you going to set your principles aside and buy these movies.
I'm betting on the latter.
And escaping into a computer game is somehow more noble or meaningful? Please give me a physical break, and dispense with the drama. He's not out feeding starving children, he's playing a video game.
I have no problem with people pointing out some of the negatives of our culture, but I'm afraid playing a video game doesn't elevate one above the 'sheep-le'.
I don't know about you, but to me that sounds awfully like a corporate Windows lisence, where the customer is expected to pay for each server the software is installed on. I know it's not EXACTLY the same, but there will be plenty of people who will go to bat for RedHat when Microsoft (via the BSA) does pretty much the same thing.
Think before you reply defending RedHat, lest you sound like a hypocrite.
You forgot to add the obligatory /. "...as long as the Little Guy(tm) triumphs over Big Evil Corporation(tm)."
When both schools and parents buy computers, they come with Windows (or MacOS) pre-installed, as well as some sort of service contract and warranty.
What I think would be the biggest hurdle would be to convince both the school and the parents that they should abandon the OS they paid for and switch to something very different. Not to mention that dumping the pre-installed OS would probably void any service contract or warranty that was also included in the price of the computer(s).
A great idea at first glance, but there are a lot of hurdles to overcome.
If I recall correctly, it took a war to sort that all out. And even after that and 140 years later, there are still plenty of people who belive it wasn't fair. :)
However there is a huge moral difference (by today's standards anyway) between selling software packages and human beings. I think the day that selling software is seen as morally reprehensible (and I'm not talking specifically about Microsoft) is a long way off.
There are plenty of people (and dare I say many of them read and post on this very site) with the expertise to teach this kind of material, but who believe that an insecure system is an open invitation to wreak havoc on it. Hiring a responsible teacher is equally, if not more, important than making sure that the right messages are part of the cirriculum.
So an author and publisher should only be paid once for a book they produce, now matter how many copies of their work are sold? Would you find it OK if someone bought said book, made 200 copies of it, and gave it away to all of his friends who were unwilling to buy it themselves? The author and publisher aren't directly losing anything, so it's ok, right?
I am willing to. My thoughts on the bullshit 'drug war' aside, you won't find drug users trying to justify not paying their dealers. Failing to pay them can be... unhealthy.
That said, I don't think that drug trade is analogous to the software industry, as currently it is illegal to deal in drugs. Find an appropriate comparison and I may be more receptive to your ideas.
What about the student who downloads $500 worth of games (roughly 9 or 10 games)? That's certainly a reasonable assumption, as well as the assumption that an average college student can afford 9 or 10 games. Are you saying that it is moral for a person to download $20,000 worth of software, but immoral to download $500? That's absurd.
But what about games? We all know that a large portion of software piracy is games, which are generally priced in the $40 to $60 range. Certainly a reasonable and affordable price, so where's the justification for pirating games? Does that mean it's only moral to pirate stuff you can't afford?
In a capitialist economy, people and businesses have a right to be compensated for their work. That doesn't mean they have a right to profit or exist, but when someone uses their product or service, they have the right to be fairly compensated for it. If you don't think their price is fair, don't buy it, but don't take it either.
Unless, of course, you believe that everything should be distributed freely for the common good. But that's called Communism, and it doesn't work.
I assume you meant aren't.
Another popular argument that software piracy isn't bad as long as you can't afford to purchase the software. Nice try, but the end result is the same: you are using software that you haven't paid for. Whether or not you could have afforded what you have stolen is irrelevant.
I know the parent was a troll, but sadly a lot of people believe this.
The fundamental argument, whether you're willing to admit it or not, is that the creators of software (or music for that matter) should not be paid for their creations.
Whatever justification you believe is a valid defense for illegally obtaining software, it all comes down to the fact that the creator of that product is not being justly compensated. I don't care if nothing is PHYSICALLY being stolen, the fact remains that he is not being paid for it, and that's where the theft comes from.
If you were a developer whose livelihood depended on people purchasing your software, I'm sure you'd see this issue very differently.
Work harder! Someone on welfare is counting on you!
This sounds even better than when Bill Gates e-mailed me saying he will pay me $5.00 for every person I forward the message to!
1. And you suggest the same person will be any more inclined to re-read handwritten or typed notes?
2. Laugh, it's funny. Don't be such a douchebag.
It won't, and neither will a PDA if you haven't trained yourself to enter each and every assignment. As long as the discipline isn't there, neither a $5.00 calendar, nor a $200 PDA will help you. And which investment are you more prepared to lose?
If college freshmen want to really get their shit together, take notes on paper, and write down due dates on a calendar displayed in a prominent place in your dorm. Once that has become a habit, technology might make it easier, but until then, you have an expensive paperweight.
It's not the responsibility or right of a community to make that kind of determination for individuals.
"As for the socialist slur, uhh... wrong again. Name calling is quite easy, but the label was inaccurate."
My apologies, I was under the impression that the term was a compliment around here :)
"This means that our federal government is supposed to be more resistant to the demagogue-style stupidity that encourages socialism."
Sadly, it has only served to empower socialists who disguise their slavery-through-taxation schemes as 'providing' for the people.
That's funny, since when was an individual's right to choose what they wanted to watch/listen to, without a government entity filtering out "offensive" content, a Bad Thing(tm)?
"More power to'em."
Ahh, a true socialist!