The attraction of Wikipedia to trolls and fanatics is very simple: amongst average clueless users who know about Wikipedia it appears to be more credible than the crap posted on most forums or web pages. That means that a troll, a fanatic, or some mediocre nobody who'd otherwise be dismissed as being a fool can use Wikipedia to their own ends as a way of legitimizing their point of view. If their clueless ignorance were posted on a forum or personal web page it'd be tossed off as bullshit by 99% of the people who read it; if it appears in Wikipedia this number declines markedly.
Legitimacy is one of the primary quests for any asshole. Without legitimacy an asshole is just an asshole, and most of us will ignore him unless he makes it impossible for us to do so (e.g., by bombing a Planned Parenthood clinic or convincing other assholes to pass laws banning gay marriage). Wikipedia provides an avenue to achieving some form of legitimacy, and doing so "under the radar" by *appearing* to be an objective source of information.
It's good that an ex-editor of EB and a co-founder of Wikipedia have made public the flaws of Wikipedia. People shouldn't put too much credence into a source of information so obviously open to manipulation. It is NOT an encyclopedia nor does it endeavor to be accurate above all other things. As you pointed out, it isn't even held to the standards that most FAQs endeavor to achieve.
It appears you have a problem with expert opinion since it seems you can't reference it without quotes. Simply put, an expert is a recognized authority on a specific subject; it doesn't mean the expert will always be right, but it does mean that he'll usually be right on that particular topic compared to YOU.
The anti-elitism of Wikipedia isn't inclusive but exclusive. It excludes actualy experts who might otherwise be motivated to correct bad entries but who really don't want to put up with the bullshit disdain that certain assholes have for anyone who happens to know more about a subject than they do, or who are clearly smarter than they are. This is the primary fundamental flaw of Wikipedia: that mediocre individuals with little knowledge and less smarts are given the same amount of credence - often more - than people who really have a clue. And that makes Wikipedia little better than your average forum, where any asshole with a huge dollop of ignorance and a fanatical agenda can and will push his (erroneous) view on everyone else regardless of just how fucking silly it actually is.
Wikipedia, like most internet resources, should be taken with an enormous grain of salt. While entries are often correct, when they aren't they're so far off and so clearly motivated by some ignoramus's personal agenda they bear little resemblance to anything remotely akin to the truth.
Well, that's inviting in and of itself. With that one move you've gotten rid of all the 15-year-old shits whose mama's never bitch-slapped any manners into them. And the older shits who never managed to get past the age of 15, at least mentally.
Not long ago it was very unusual (almost unheard of) for men to be present in the delivery room during child birth. The fathers would sit in the waiting room until it was all over. I'd like to know how 50 years transforms a universally accepted practice into something that makes one a "very stupid human being." I'm guessing you are a teenager who thinks the universe was born in 1985. Go read a book. You might learn something.
And not long before that there were no delivery rooms and fathers - assuming they were around - attended the birth of their children as a matter of course. Happened to be this way for the entire human race, for 99% of our history.
The aberration here is keeping the fathers away from birthing mothers. Which you'd happen to know if you had read a few fucking books, or realized that the universe wasn't born in 1950.
Do you have any good references that describe the relative status of women in that society?.
Hmm...not online. And unfortunately most of my library was destroyed years ago and I'm still a long, long way from rebuilding it. I haven't even gotten around to historical works yet, other than a set of The Great Books, some Norse history, mythology, and of course the Eddas.
(pause for a moment while I sob over my library. Sob!)
Still, I'd think you might be able to find some reputable online references via Google by now. If not then barnesandnoble.com has to have something of worth, as I don't think the historical revisionists have managed to do anything about Egypt yet.
As for the sig, ever since I put it up I've gone from mostly being modded up to almost never being modded up. It apparently pisses of the christian-types to no end. If you care at all about your karma (which I clearly don't), be very careful about what you put in your sig!
Sadly, too many losers in online gaming can't seem to make the distinction. To them virtual reality, even a poorly-constructed first-generation sort of virtual reality, IS reality.
Does that mean we need to change our behavior to accommodate these deluded idiots? Hell no! They need to grow up, and if they can't manage that then perhaps medication will do the trick. Or being banned from online gaming altogether, if they refuse to make the distinction.
A game is just a game. If you start taking the game too seriously, something isn't wrong with the game, or with other people in the game - something is wrong with YOU.
How the hell is this insightful? Last I checked the fact that every hot chick at your college won't drop to her knees and give you a blowjob is NOT discrimination.
More likely, this is somebody who comes from the literary school of role play, where powerful themes such as racism and sexism are strongly present.
As opposed to those of us who don't misrepresent a game for some deep exploration of societal values, and recognize that it's just a bloody form of PLAY and nothing more.
One of the biggest reasons to stay away from online games is that there are so many idiots who insist that everyone else take the damned thing as seriously as they do. I don't care if *they* take it seriously, but they need to piss off and leave the rest of us alone, rather than lecturing everyone on the 'right' way to play. And perhaps get a life while they're at it, so they can discover things that REALLY need to be taken seriously.
There are no legal ramifications here. There's no basis for screaming about gender discrimination when it comes to a game, especially a game centered about ancient Egypt where woman were second-class citizens. That's a matter of historical fact and it isn't up for dispute.
you've got to wonder about the business wisdom of pissing off your customer base...
And that's where the free market comes in. If enough people get annoyed with the game, someone else will come along with another game that'll cater to the disgruntled.
I don't object to the folks who annoyed voicing their opinions. But they don't have any business at all making demands of the developer, or threatening lawsuits.
I think it was in part over-reaction by a bunch of hair-trigger pseudo-feminists who can't stomache historical accuracy if it portrays women as second-class, and in part the fact that the game developer is a first-rate asshole. There's really no doubt about the second, nor in my opinion the first.
Still, it's just a game, and it's HIS game. No matter how much of a dick the guy is he can do as pleases. If some people are upset by this they can always NOT PLAY. It's that simple. If they're motivated, they could get together and make their own game.
That's the way it is in computer-land. Don't like the rules? YOU don't get to change them. It isn't a democracy. You can, however, go set up YOUR OWN fiefdom with YOUR OWN rules. That should be enough to make you happy. If it isn't, then a rational person has to wonder at your motivations, and who the real asshole is in all of this.
No, what I'm suggesting is that this is reality, right now. You can legislate against the use of cell phones, computers, televisions, whatever while driving and I'll most certainly back you - so long as you also legislate against the installation of any stereo system that can make my car shake when it's next to yours at a stoplight.
What I won't help you with is the enforcement of computer-controlled driving, or the installation of black boxes to help law enforcement monitor driver safety.
Personal freedom is fine as long as you act in a manner that doesn't infringe on the safety of others.
No, it's YOU that endangers your safety - by getting on the road to begin with. If it bothers you that other people don't drive as well as you'd like them to, you could, for example, travel by bus, or train, or plane.
The possible, incidental threat to your safety isn't worth compromising liberty, especially when in any reasonable estimation YOU'RE the one putting your life at risk, knowing what those risks are. Don't like them, don't take the risks. It's as simple as that.
If some backwater country decides to legalize copying (Sealand, perhaps), it is still illegal to import copied CD's from that country into a Berne Convention country.
So what? That doesn't address the point that it's still legal in Sealand, and the laws of other countries are of no importance to the people of Sealand. It doesn't matter how many countries have signed treaty X; that doesn't give it any particular ethical value, nor does it mean that the people of Sealand are any less ethical for ignoring it.
You were part of the problem, the problem of the publishers becoming too powerful.
More horseshit. Oligopolies can be established quite successfully through buying legislation, entirely without the aid of the consumers or citizens. Unless you'd want to argue that the passengers who used trains were 'part of the problem' with rail barons in the late 1800's, or that people who purchased gas were 'part of the problem' with oil companies, or that folks who had the audacity to use a phone were 'part of the problem' with the old Ma Bell?
Both oligopolies and monopolies spring to life not because of the buying practices of consumers, but because of the corruption of governments. People often *do not* control their governments, even here in the good ol' U.S. of A. Hell, our Founding Fathers recognized this as a simple fact of life and RECOMMENDED revolution whenever the government got out of hand.
Having labored willingly, they do not have a right to charge for the fruits of their labor.
Sure they do. I do believe that right is embodied in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, as follows:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
That "exclusive right" means the right to charge for the fruits of their labors. So you'd be wrong, unless you live in a country other than the United States.
they don't make as much money, so they're somehow entitled to stolen music?
Russia doesn't have to comply with American laws, or American standards of behavior. That's what 'sovereign' means. And even though the Russians do have some laws on the books concerning pirated copies of CDs/games/movies, it's rather clear that the Russian people - nor the authorities - give these laws much weight.
Fortunately for the Russians, it isn't up to you to determine the 'moral' standards they have to follow. Unless you plan to invade them?
When the product disappears, so will any desire for it.
Well, if that isn't a load of horseshit. If the tools to make modern plumbing disappeared tomorrow, I'm sure you and everyone else who has some fondness for it would goddamn well retain the desire to have it restored. Your children, living in their own shit and never knowing anything different, might not have the same yearning, but you certainly would.
Would Van Gogh have stopped painting if he didn't make enough to live off of it? Oh wait, he didn't.
This is an idiotic argument. You point out specific professions - writer, singer, actor - and boldly proclaim that these 'artists' should work for free, or on charity, or at the whim of the rich and powerful. Why? Just because you possess the tools to take what they produce without paying for it.
Fine, I have a tool for taking stuff from you too, without paying for it. It's called a 'gun'. I guarrantee that if I put this 'gun' of mine against your head and demand your stuff, you'll give it to me. Because if you don't I'll just shoot you and take it anyway. I can deprive you of your livelihood - or the products of your livelihood - with my tools, just as you can deprive artists of their livelihood with your computer.
I agree that both music and movies are overpriced. But I think only a fool would say that the obvious solution to overpricing is to make everything free. Either that, or a freeloader looking to justify why he doesn't feel like paying for a product.
People lived before Warner Brothers and Fox and Universal and people lived before Elektra and Columbia and Universal.
And people lived before plumbing, automobiles, computers, powered flight, and antibiotics. So the fuck what? Why is art a special exception for people like you? The answer is obvious: simply because you claim it is, nothing more. And you have the tools to steal what you want without paying for it, with little chance of getting caught.
And it's fucking life in general, you don't need movies to be happy. People know this, so they'll gladly continue these "self-destructive" and "morally reprehensible" acts of IP "theft" when given the chance.
Ah, yes, when it comes right down to it you seem to think you occupy some moral high ground, commanding on high what the rest of us should value, and why. Perhaps you should join the fucking priesthood.
Get over yourself, kid; you aren't any better than the people around you, no matter what you might think. Worse, with that obnoxious arrogance of yours.
Without promotion, marketing and distribution there would be nothing that you would hear about except maybe by hearing a performance at a local bar.
You're forgetting word of mouth, which still tends to be one of the greatest promotional tools of all time - more so now that the internet allows anyone at all to work the word-of-mouth magic across most of the globe. At least, to those who have enough money to purchase the product in the first place; and those who don't have the money are irrelevent in terms of our calculations anyway.
Piracy is more of a response to price-gouging than an attack on them for charging anything at all.
That's a very good point. As we see repeatedly we often get two types of slashdotters responding to articles like these: the ones that scream on and on about piracy, intimating that the RIAA/MPAA oligopolies are in some tenuous fashion connected to the idea of a free market and 'deserve' some vague inalienable right to whatever profits they can extract through monopolistic practices; and the idiots who think copyrights should all be abolished simply because they want all their music/movies/books for free, and don't like paying for them.
The growing, widespread instances of copyright violation, both in terms of illegal CD/DVD manufacturing and the equally illegal online downloads, are a MARKET response to artificial conditions which don't suit the consumer. It's pretty bloody apparent that a growing number of consumers find it very difficult to believe that music CD and movie DVD prices are in any way 'fair', and the more unfair the conditions seem to be the more likely it is that an otherwise law-abiding individual will decide to violate the law. If the law seems geared to bending you over and giving you the shaft you aren't very likely to comply with it. Just ask our Founding Fathers.
When a consumer can go buy a stack of a hundred CDs for burning on sale for $5.00, or download the specific tracks they want from music sites for $0.99/song, that consumer has got to wonder why he should pay $16-18 for a CD of 11-14 tracks, most of which he doesn't care for. And why those CDs are so expensive when a friend of his with an in-home recording studio can rip out his band's music on CD for a few bucks each.
And a good thing. Why should a particularly class of people (one man, one woman) being given preferential treatment by the government?
has already legalized abortion and homosexual acts
Your sex life isn't anyone's business but your own, and no one should be able to enslave women according to their religious whims. Been there, done that, really don't want to go back to it.
and folks don't want to hear about morality
Which, I see, you conveniently define as YOUR morality, deriving from YOUR particular religion and YOUR favored god.
We basically told God to shove it
He always was an obnoxious prick. There are SO many other cooler gods out there....
It's when a person has had their life changed by a relationship with Christ and tells that to another person.
Even when they don't bloody want to hear about it, and would rather you just fuck off and leave them alone.
But while we're going on about evangelism, how about I try to convert you to worshipping the Norse gods? In fact, I think we should put up statues of Odin in courthouses (or perhaps Tyr would be more appropriate) and sacrifice small animals in schools.
I just wish that folks would actually get educated about things - especially religion - when they talk about them.
I wish the same thing. Like trying, for example, to wrap your mind around the fact that "religion" DOES NOT EQUAL "christianity". There are hundreds of religions around the world, and yours is just one of them.
surely political correctness means not disparaging anyone?
Political correctness is for idiots who can't stand the fact that the First Amendment allows others to express views contrary to their own. Or perhaps that was the point you were making?
Since competition from illegal copiers is unfair competition according to the law
All that means is that some country somewhere is going to legalize the copying of CDs and movies without paying U.S. oligopolies a cut of the action, taking a chunk of that change in taxes as the payoff. And then by your definition it would be 'fair' competition, because it would be legal.
Unless you're assuming that U.S. law pre-empts all others world-wide?
Good christ, I can't believe anyone else read those books. I loved them! So much so that 30 years later I tracked those puppies down so my wife could read them.
With a good script and today's CGI the movies could be blockbusters, especially if they're geared for teens (like the books were).
Slashdot Mirror
The attraction of Wikipedia to trolls and fanatics is very simple: amongst average clueless users who know about Wikipedia it appears to be more credible than the crap posted on most forums or web pages. That means that a troll, a fanatic, or some mediocre nobody who'd otherwise be dismissed as being a fool can use Wikipedia to their own ends as a way of legitimizing their point of view. If their clueless ignorance were posted on a forum or personal web page it'd be tossed off as bullshit by 99% of the people who read it; if it appears in Wikipedia this number declines markedly.
Legitimacy is one of the primary quests for any asshole. Without legitimacy an asshole is just an asshole, and most of us will ignore him unless he makes it impossible for us to do so (e.g., by bombing a Planned Parenthood clinic or convincing other assholes to pass laws banning gay marriage). Wikipedia provides an avenue to achieving some form of legitimacy, and doing so "under the radar" by *appearing* to be an objective source of information.
It's good that an ex-editor of EB and a co-founder of Wikipedia have made public the flaws of Wikipedia. People shouldn't put too much credence into a source of information so obviously open to manipulation. It is NOT an encyclopedia nor does it endeavor to be accurate above all other things. As you pointed out, it isn't even held to the standards that most FAQs endeavor to achieve.
Max
It appears you have a problem with expert opinion since it seems you can't reference it without quotes. Simply put, an expert is a recognized authority on a specific subject; it doesn't mean the expert will always be right, but it does mean that he'll usually be right on that particular topic compared to YOU.
The anti-elitism of Wikipedia isn't inclusive but exclusive. It excludes actualy experts who might otherwise be motivated to correct bad entries but who really don't want to put up with the bullshit disdain that certain assholes have for anyone who happens to know more about a subject than they do, or who are clearly smarter than they are. This is the primary fundamental flaw of Wikipedia: that mediocre individuals with little knowledge and less smarts are given the same amount of credence - often more - than people who really have a clue. And that makes Wikipedia little better than your average forum, where any asshole with a huge dollop of ignorance and a fanatical agenda can and will push his (erroneous) view on everyone else regardless of just how fucking silly it actually is.
Wikipedia, like most internet resources, should be taken with an enormous grain of salt. While entries are often correct, when they aren't they're so far off and so clearly motivated by some ignoramus's personal agenda they bear little resemblance to anything remotely akin to the truth.
Max
6) elimination of PKing and KSing.
Well, that's inviting in and of itself. With that one move you've gotten rid of all the 15-year-old shits whose mama's never bitch-slapped any manners into them. And the older shits who never managed to get past the age of 15, at least mentally.
Max
Not long ago it was very unusual (almost unheard of) for men to be present in the delivery room during child birth. The fathers would sit in the waiting room until it was all over. I'd like to know how 50 years transforms a universally accepted practice into something that makes one a "very stupid human being." I'm guessing you are a teenager who thinks the universe was born in 1985. Go read a book. You might learn something.
And not long before that there were no delivery rooms and fathers - assuming they were around - attended the birth of their children as a matter of course. Happened to be this way for the entire human race, for 99% of our history.
The aberration here is keeping the fathers away from birthing mothers. Which you'd happen to know if you had read a few fucking books, or realized that the universe wasn't born in 1950.
Max
Do you have any good references that describe the relative status of women in that society?.
Hmm...not online. And unfortunately most of my library was destroyed years ago and I'm still a long, long way from rebuilding it. I haven't even gotten around to historical works yet, other than a set of The Great Books, some Norse history, mythology, and of course the Eddas.
(pause for a moment while I sob over my library. Sob!)
Still, I'd think you might be able to find some reputable online references via Google by now. If not then barnesandnoble.com has to have something of worth, as I don't think the historical revisionists have managed to do anything about Egypt yet.
As for the sig, ever since I put it up I've gone from mostly being modded up to almost never being modded up. It apparently pisses of the christian-types to no end. If you care at all about your karma (which I clearly don't), be very careful about what you put in your sig!
Max
You are not your fucking character.
Sadly, too many losers in online gaming can't seem to make the distinction. To them virtual reality, even a poorly-constructed first-generation sort of virtual reality, IS reality.
Does that mean we need to change our behavior to accommodate these deluded idiots? Hell no! They need to grow up, and if they can't manage that then perhaps medication will do the trick. Or being banned from online gaming altogether, if they refuse to make the distinction.
A game is just a game. If you start taking the game too seriously, something isn't wrong with the game, or with other people in the game - something is wrong with YOU.
Max
How the hell is this insightful? Last I checked the fact that every hot chick at your college won't drop to her knees and give you a blowjob is NOT discrimination.
Max
More likely, this is somebody who comes from the literary school of role play, where powerful themes such as racism and sexism are strongly present.
As opposed to those of us who don't misrepresent a game for some deep exploration of societal values, and recognize that it's just a bloody form of PLAY and nothing more.
One of the biggest reasons to stay away from online games is that there are so many idiots who insist that everyone else take the damned thing as seriously as they do. I don't care if *they* take it seriously, but they need to piss off and leave the rest of us alone, rather than lecturing everyone on the 'right' way to play. And perhaps get a life while they're at it, so they can discover things that REALLY need to be taken seriously.
Bah!
Max
legal ramifications aside
There are no legal ramifications here. There's no basis for screaming about gender discrimination when it comes to a game, especially a game centered about ancient Egypt where woman were second-class citizens. That's a matter of historical fact and it isn't up for dispute.
you've got to wonder about the business wisdom of pissing off your customer base...
And that's where the free market comes in. If enough people get annoyed with the game, someone else will come along with another game that'll cater to the disgruntled.
I don't object to the folks who annoyed voicing their opinions. But they don't have any business at all making demands of the developer, or threatening lawsuits.
Max
I think it was in part over-reaction by a bunch of hair-trigger pseudo-feminists who can't stomache historical accuracy if it portrays women as second-class, and in part the fact that the game developer is a first-rate asshole. There's really no doubt about the second, nor in my opinion the first.
Still, it's just a game, and it's HIS game. No matter how much of a dick the guy is he can do as pleases. If some people are upset by this they can always NOT PLAY. It's that simple. If they're motivated, they could get together and make their own game.
That's the way it is in computer-land. Don't like the rules? YOU don't get to change them. It isn't a democracy. You can, however, go set up YOUR OWN fiefdom with YOUR OWN rules. That should be enough to make you happy. If it isn't, then a rational person has to wonder at your motivations, and who the real asshole is in all of this.
Max
Besides which, I thought "fair and balanced" reporting was copyrighted by Fox.
Max
Re your sig, my God is alive after being nailed to a tree.
So you say. But I haven't seen him at Wal-Mart recently, and neither have you.
Max
What you are suggesting is anarchy
No, what I'm suggesting is that this is reality, right now. You can legislate against the use of cell phones, computers, televisions, whatever while driving and I'll most certainly back you - so long as you also legislate against the installation of any stereo system that can make my car shake when it's next to yours at a stoplight.
What I won't help you with is the enforcement of computer-controlled driving, or the installation of black boxes to help law enforcement monitor driver safety.
Max
Personal freedom is fine as long as you act in a manner that doesn't infringe on the safety of others.
No, it's YOU that endangers your safety - by getting on the road to begin with. If it bothers you that other people don't drive as well as you'd like them to, you could, for example, travel by bus, or train, or plane.
The possible, incidental threat to your safety isn't worth compromising liberty, especially when in any reasonable estimation YOU'RE the one putting your life at risk, knowing what those risks are. Don't like them, don't take the risks. It's as simple as that.
Max
If some backwater country decides to legalize copying (Sealand, perhaps), it is still illegal to import copied CD's from that country into a Berne Convention country.
So what? That doesn't address the point that it's still legal in Sealand, and the laws of other countries are of no importance to the people of Sealand. It doesn't matter how many countries have signed treaty X; that doesn't give it any particular ethical value, nor does it mean that the people of Sealand are any less ethical for ignoring it.
Max
You were part of the problem, the problem of the publishers becoming too powerful.
More horseshit. Oligopolies can be established quite successfully through buying legislation, entirely without the aid of the consumers or citizens. Unless you'd want to argue that the passengers who used trains were 'part of the problem' with rail barons in the late 1800's, or that people who purchased gas were 'part of the problem' with oil companies, or that folks who had the audacity to use a phone were 'part of the problem' with the old Ma Bell?
Both oligopolies and monopolies spring to life not because of the buying practices of consumers, but because of the corruption of governments. People often *do not* control their governments, even here in the good ol' U.S. of A. Hell, our Founding Fathers recognized this as a simple fact of life and RECOMMENDED revolution whenever the government got out of hand.
Max
Having labored willingly, they do not have a right to charge for the fruits of their labor.
Sure they do. I do believe that right is embodied in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, as follows:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
That "exclusive right" means the right to charge for the fruits of their labors. So you'd be wrong, unless you live in a country other than the United States.
Max
they don't make as much money, so they're somehow entitled to stolen music?
Russia doesn't have to comply with American laws, or American standards of behavior. That's what 'sovereign' means. And even though the Russians do have some laws on the books concerning pirated copies of CDs/games/movies, it's rather clear that the Russian people - nor the authorities - give these laws much weight.
Fortunately for the Russians, it isn't up to you to determine the 'moral' standards they have to follow. Unless you plan to invade them?
Max
When the product disappears, so will any desire for it.
Well, if that isn't a load of horseshit. If the tools to make modern plumbing disappeared tomorrow, I'm sure you and everyone else who has some fondness for it would goddamn well retain the desire to have it restored. Your children, living in their own shit and never knowing anything different, might not have the same yearning, but you certainly would.
Would Van Gogh have stopped painting if he didn't make enough to live off of it? Oh wait, he didn't.
This is an idiotic argument. You point out specific professions - writer, singer, actor - and boldly proclaim that these 'artists' should work for free, or on charity, or at the whim of the rich and powerful. Why? Just because you possess the tools to take what they produce without paying for it.
Fine, I have a tool for taking stuff from you too, without paying for it. It's called a 'gun'. I guarrantee that if I put this 'gun' of mine against your head and demand your stuff, you'll give it to me. Because if you don't I'll just shoot you and take it anyway. I can deprive you of your livelihood - or the products of your livelihood - with my tools, just as you can deprive artists of their livelihood with your computer.
I agree that both music and movies are overpriced. But I think only a fool would say that the obvious solution to overpricing is to make everything free. Either that, or a freeloader looking to justify why he doesn't feel like paying for a product.
People lived before Warner Brothers and Fox and Universal and people lived before Elektra and Columbia and Universal.
And people lived before plumbing, automobiles, computers, powered flight, and antibiotics. So the fuck what? Why is art a special exception for people like you? The answer is obvious: simply because you claim it is, nothing more. And you have the tools to steal what you want without paying for it, with little chance of getting caught.
And it's fucking life in general, you don't need movies to be happy. People know this, so they'll gladly continue these "self-destructive" and "morally reprehensible" acts of IP "theft" when given the chance.
Ah, yes, when it comes right down to it you seem to think you occupy some moral high ground, commanding on high what the rest of us should value, and why. Perhaps you should join the fucking priesthood.
Get over yourself, kid; you aren't any better than the people around you, no matter what you might think. Worse, with that obnoxious arrogance of yours.
Max
Without promotion, marketing and distribution there would be nothing that you would hear about except maybe by hearing a performance at a local bar.
You're forgetting word of mouth, which still tends to be one of the greatest promotional tools of all time - more so now that the internet allows anyone at all to work the word-of-mouth magic across most of the globe. At least, to those who have enough money to purchase the product in the first place; and those who don't have the money are irrelevent in terms of our calculations anyway.
Max
Piracy is more of a response to price-gouging than an attack on them for charging anything at all.
That's a very good point. As we see repeatedly we often get two types of slashdotters responding to articles like these: the ones that scream on and on about piracy, intimating that the RIAA/MPAA oligopolies are in some tenuous fashion connected to the idea of a free market and 'deserve' some vague inalienable right to whatever profits they can extract through monopolistic practices; and the idiots who think copyrights should all be abolished simply because they want all their music/movies/books for free, and don't like paying for them.
The growing, widespread instances of copyright violation, both in terms of illegal CD/DVD manufacturing and the equally illegal online downloads, are a MARKET response to artificial conditions which don't suit the consumer. It's pretty bloody apparent that a growing number of consumers find it very difficult to believe that music CD and movie DVD prices are in any way 'fair', and the more unfair the conditions seem to be the more likely it is that an otherwise law-abiding individual will decide to violate the law. If the law seems geared to bending you over and giving you the shaft you aren't very likely to comply with it. Just ask our Founding Fathers.
When a consumer can go buy a stack of a hundred CDs for burning on sale for $5.00, or download the specific tracks they want from music sites for $0.99/song, that consumer has got to wonder why he should pay $16-18 for a CD of 11-14 tracks, most of which he doesn't care for. And why those CDs are so expensive when a friend of his with an in-home recording studio can rip out his band's music on CD for a few bucks each.
Max
is trying to legalize homosexual marriage
And a good thing. Why should a particularly class of people (one man, one woman) being given preferential treatment by the government?
has already legalized abortion and homosexual acts
Your sex life isn't anyone's business but your own, and no one should be able to enslave women according to their religious whims. Been there, done that, really don't want to go back to it.
and folks don't want to hear about morality
Which, I see, you conveniently define as YOUR morality, deriving from YOUR particular religion and YOUR favored god.
We basically told God to shove it
He always was an obnoxious prick. There are SO many other cooler gods out there....
It's when a person has had their life changed by a relationship with Christ and tells that to another person.
Even when they don't bloody want to hear about it, and would rather you just fuck off and leave them alone.
But while we're going on about evangelism, how about I try to convert you to worshipping the Norse gods? In fact, I think we should put up statues of Odin in courthouses (or perhaps Tyr would be more appropriate) and sacrifice small animals in schools.
I just wish that folks would actually get educated about things - especially religion - when they talk about them.
I wish the same thing. Like trying, for example, to wrap your mind around the fact that "religion" DOES NOT EQUAL "christianity". There are hundreds of religions around the world, and yours is just one of them.
Max
surely political correctness means not disparaging anyone?
Political correctness is for idiots who can't stand the fact that the First Amendment allows others to express views contrary to their own. Or perhaps that was the point you were making?
Max
Since competition from illegal copiers is unfair competition according to the law
All that means is that some country somewhere is going to legalize the copying of CDs and movies without paying U.S. oligopolies a cut of the action, taking a chunk of that change in taxes as the payoff. And then by your definition it would be 'fair' competition, because it would be legal.
Unless you're assuming that U.S. law pre-empts all others world-wide?
Max
Good christ, I can't believe anyone else read those books. I loved them! So much so that 30 years later I tracked those puppies down so my wife could read them.
With a good script and today's CGI the movies could be blockbusters, especially if they're geared for teens (like the books were).
Max