Urgh. I can't believe I'm carrying this infernal thread on, but here we go again.
Look. Quite simply my point is this: I believe that if somebody creates something, they have the right to do with it as they wish. Including charging any amount of money they see fit for access to that thing. Thus I should be able to record a CD and sell it for a million dollars a copy. Chances are I wouldn't get any sales at that price, especially given my lack of musical talent, but that's not the point. I created it, and therefore I should be able to do as I wish with it. If people aren't willing to meet my terms, they don't get my creation. Fair? Seems so to me. After all, if it wasn't for me the thing would never have existed in the first place.
I'm not saying nothing should be free. Many great artists give away art, music, writing, software, and so on for free. This is a great thing. However, I just think it should be up to the terms of the creator.
There seems to have been a view throughout this thread (not from what you've said, but in general) that I've been defending the position of the RIAA or whatever. Not at all. My position is simply, and I state again, the creator of an artwork should be able to do with it as they wish, including controlling access to it.
The only potential problem that arises from that is if another person has a legitimate claim that they could've made the same thing themselves, and have therefore lost out on control of something they had a right to.. but that's a whole other argument.
To put it another way, you ask "Why the hell should people pay for art?"
My question is "Why the hell should artists be forced to give their work away for nothing in return"? - that IS what you're proposing by the way. In saying that all art should be freely avaliable to everyone, you're saying that the artist doesn't necessarily need to get anything in return except for a fuzzy sense of wellbeing from helping the human race, and some recognition.
Bizarrely, I suspect you might well say something about how people would pay for it anyways. If so.. you're arguing AGAINST paying for something that you're supposed to pay for. So are you now going to argue FOR paying for something that you don't have to?
Anyways, just because it's pedantic, and the world needs pedants...
As for DVDs, nowhere I said the studio should provide a free copy to everyone, just that they should not stop others from doing that. Those people who want to pay for the DVD would still do that. As for DivX and extras, how many extras can you get on P2P? Not that many, probably not more than a few dozens.
You said in an earlier post that ALL art should be avaliable freely to people should they want it. That would mean the DVD extras would also be freely avaliable to people. And because it wouldn't be illegal to distribute them, they would be avaliable much more easily (from a TLD webpage, for example.. without lots of popups and other crap), and at much higher quality (larger files easier to distribute due to no problems with legality/hosting issues. Think Animatrix*). Therefore the DVD wouldn't have much to recommend it beyond the inlay art and liner notes (Which is what scanners are for...)
Yes, I accept fans would probably still buy it. I know people who do this - they have every track from a CD downloaded as MP3, AND scans of the art, liner notes, etc, but they still go out and buy the CD. However, I don't believe enough people are like that to make it financially viable. I'll gladly be proven wrong, however. Be sure to message me with a "Told you so!" when you've made your fortune from selling freely downloadable DVDs and CDs
Really, though, what it's all about is people desperately trying to justify taking copies of things they don't actually have any right to own.
In fact, I think this whole thing could be best summed up by what I just said to my gf on IRC when she asked about this thread:
Ooh.. I likey. Yes, this probably marks me for life as a sad git, but hey, I read slashdot don't I?;)
Anyways, this is a great idea. I wonder if there's any potential for some kind of crossover with the machinima community? It's got a lot of similar aspects - the virtual camerawork, using a game engine for real time film making. Only difference here is it's the game itself you're filming.
How much was Bach paid for distribution of his recordings? Did he have another job?
Know your history. He personally paid for his CD mastering and duplication empire which allowed him such an unparalleled ability to get his recordings out there by starting out with small business selling cellphones. In 1685.
Or maybe I'm being slightly sarcastic.
I have to take exception, by the way, with you calling NOLF2 unoriginal crap. Crap is, of course, purely subjective, and you're entitled to that opinion, but that game was groundbreaking in any number of ways (The slick 60's themed presentation, the depth of immersion created by being able to overhear to an entire conversation between two enemies, the humour in said conversations, the simple, but effective vehicles system)
Oh, and you do realise you're levelling the accusation of unoriginality at, as far as I'm aware, the only game in history to have a plot critical section where you play the 'turret' gunner in a tricycle-v.s.-unicycle chase through busy city streets?
But I digress.
There are free books in libraries, but people still pay for their own copy
Libraries != p2p. p2p allows you to obtain, and keep permanently, for free, a copyrighted work. Libraries are only a short term lending system.
[on the subject of who would fund movie production] The state, may be? Or independent sponsors. And you'd be perfectly happy when your hard earned tax dollars were responsible for the making of another Matrix: Revolutions, or Die Hard With Even Less Plot?
As for independent sponsors - Who? Because under your rules there's basically going to be bugger all chance of a movie being profitable (Given that even with the current system of people paying for movies, many struggle to break even) there's going to be little or no return on investment. So the only potential sources that leaves is large organisations or rich individuals with a great love of the arts, or more money than sense, or both.
Same with music and movies - concerts, CDs, movie theatres and DVDs all add value to the barebones product. That's why people continue to shell out their money for art.
Uh, hang on, say what? You're now saying money will be made from people buying DVDs? I thought the DVD was going to be free, or at least, free-minus-production-costs? or that the DivX and, naturally, all the extras (because art/information should be free, right?) would be downloadable for free. So where, pray tell, is this money going to come from?
I'm going to use it to inform them of some of the exiting products and services avaliable to the internet user of today! (in other words, copy and paste from my uberspammed hotmail account, to their contact form...)
No true. Art belongs to everyone. Everyone has the right to enjoy art. That's why valuable works of art are on display, sometimes for free, in museums all over the world. Copying music == being human. Enjoying art == being human. Sharing MP3s == doing something for the betterment of mankind. Suing kids == being a slimey litiguos toad.
Right. So, everyone should get music for free. You do realise that would mean that being a musician would then no longer be profitable? There would be no full time career musicians, only hobbyists, and even they'd all need another job, which would mean less productive output. But fine, I can cope with that.
Where it all starts to look distinctly squiffy, however, is movies. The exact same arguments could be levelled at the movie industry, so tell me, when all movies are given away for free, who's going to stump up the money to make one?
And before you start on the "We don't need no stinkin' multi million dollar hollywood blockbusters" argument, I'm basically talking about ALL films here. Yes, even those obscure indie films. An absolute shoestring budget for a movie these days is still tens of thousands of dollars.
It's very easy to fall back on the "but the movie industry is HUGE! it can't possibly disappear" argument. Simple logic dictates however, that if EVERYONE did stop paying for music or movies, the market would by and large disappear. Have you taken a look at the state of the PC games industry lately? It ain't a pretty site. Yes, look beyond the upcoming releases of doom 3 and halflife 2. Compare this pre-christmas market to that of 3 or 4 years ago. Sad fact is, the PC is suffering. There have been a lot of truely classic games (Giants: Citizen Kabuto, and Noone Lives Forever 2, to name just two) that should've sold masses, but in fact made a horrendous loss. And it wasn't for lack of people playing them. Both those games were warezed to hell and back.
I'm sorry, this is no criticism of your post, but I just realised it's 3:52 AM and I'm reading a website with discussion in which the following words can legitimately occur:...adapt the proteosynthesis process for creating micro-polypeptide clusters that are circuit elements with highly specific binding sites for self assembly. A DNA sequence would encode an mRNA sequence that is passed to a ribsome-like micro-factory. An alphabet of tRNA units would carry heavily modified amino-acids and provide both the electrical and structural of properties of the polypeptide...
I think I need to take a very long hard look at my life.
If anyone needs me, I'll probably be in a remote temple in the north of france, wearing a simple brown habit, and chanting. --
Re:And it's a violation of copyright law
on
iPod-Jacked
·
· Score: 1
You DO realise how pointless a post that wa, right? As I see it the only reason you posted that was to let everyone know the names of three of the bands you like. Given that Motorhead and Slayer are extremely well known, I can only hope you were trying to pick up some kind of obscurity kudos points with Libido Airbag.
Well, I guess it's worth something.. I know very, very few people into Libido Airbag. If you don't already have it, I'd suggest getting hold of the superb Barrel Blowjob album. Goregrind influenced cheapcore at it's finest.
Oh yeah, and you may want to consider checking out any of the following: Micropoint, Fastforward, Prosthetic Cunt, Drogheda, Monastat 7, Nasenbluten, Bloody Fist, Morbs, or any other number of similarly obscure artists.
By the way, the radio stations here are no better, but I still managed to find all that (and much, much, much more) and I'm in a terrible situation for buying music here. I live in the middle of nowhere, Scotland. Not much of ANYTHING around here.
Motorhead, I won't bother to offer an opinion on beyond the obvious: Ace of Spades is a classic.
Slayer, I used to have some respect for. Sadly, no longer. Oh well. Angel of Death, Raining Blood, War Ensemble and Dittohead are still classics.
However, that doesn't change the point that this was a staggeringly pointless post. Anyone could've said "I listen to MP3s because my chosen favourites aren't played on local radio." Oh well.
*sigh* Yeah, figures. I missed that one. Look at my follow up post, How many places did I point out that I was using "crime" as shorthand for infringement, civil rights violation, whatever?
Well, if it'll make you happy, to keep the record straight, replace "crime" with "copyright violation" or whatever is the appropriate terminology, IANAL. Yes, I realise this probably sounds flippant, as there is a bloody big difference between a crime and a violation, however I probably should have made clear that I was using "crime" in the very loose layman's sense of "Something that the courts would find to be worthy of some type of punitive measures"
Well thought out and argued post - just when I was starting to lose faith in slashdot, too - thanks:)
Morality does not enter into it. The RIAA can sue anyone they like, it does'nt mean the defendant is a bad person or has actually done anything "wrong". The moral argument falls flat especially when you concider the moral framework that the RIAA opporates under. Their PR about "artists rights" is cynical and hypocritical to the extreme. If you think that the RIAA is some bastion of moral fortatude, setting by example a brave a righteous vision for the soceity of the 21st century the I am afraid for you. So if you don't mind I'll just discount the "moral" argument against p2p sharing.
Please refer to "Two wrongs do not make a right" You are again arguing that since the RIAA is immoral, it must, by logical extension, be morally just to defy them.
Basically, I agree with pretty much everything you've said. Yes. The RIAA ARE cynical and hypocritical to the extreme as regards artists rights. Yes, I entirely agree they rip off artists. If you do a bit of googling around it's quite shocking the number of famous, huge-selling artists who you assume are/were millionaires, who actually ended up in horrible debt due to bad contracts and so forth. The recording business is a nasty place, and indeed, in the case of the RIAA I believe you'd be hard pressed to find a more wretched hive of scum and villany outside of politics (which they're not even entirely outside of)
I don't believe for a moment the RIAA should be able to just drag any old kid off and sue them becuase they think they might maybe possibly be sharing some files with a similar name to what could be copyright songs. The logical extension of that is Guantanamo Bay, and please, let's not have any more of that!
I realise I'm rather going on at length here, but I suspect you've unintentionally built yourself a straw man for my argument, so let me make it completely clear:
1. By recieving and sharing with others for free the copyrighted material of another person without that person's permission, the girl in question has shown bad moral judgement.
2. In using draconian bullying tactics to make an example of said girl and try to scare other potential file traders into not sharing their music, the RIAA has shown bad moral judgement.
They are BOTH guilty, but, whether rightly or wrongly, only one has actually broken a law (/civil code/whatever the proper term is)
However, if you insist that I must rest the blame squarely on one, and fully exonerate the other by choosing which I deem to be the more morally reprehensible of the two, rest assured that I would point the finger at the RIAA.
Now, please excuse this long winded post, but two final points...
1. If this seems rambling, deluded, badly written, or faulty in logic.. well, I'm caffinated up to my eyeballs, and have been awake for about 29 hours now
2. I did mention devil's advocate previously. That may or may not mean that I do or have at some time actively participated in p2p sharing of morally dubious material. At least if, hypothetically, I had, or do, then I would accept quite cheerfully the fact that I am both immoral and hypocritical.
It's incredible how many people try to justify their use of p2p for sharing copyrighted music. Here's the bottom line. It really does not matter one bit whether it's more like sneaking into a movie theatre than theft, or any other daft analogy you can come up with. It also doesn't matter that the artists/shops/RIAA/whoever is corrupt and evil. Didn't your grandma ever tell you "Two wrongs do not make a right". The absolute bottom line is it results in you gaining something you have no legal or moral right to.
If you dispute that, please explain how this is different from the people who download full version warez under the premise "I need it to fully evaluate it" - despite the existence of a fully or almost fully functional trial version - and having these "evaluations" last.. well.. permanently.
The "Information wants to be free" argument invariably falls down when a person who'll quite glibly throw out that catchphrase suddenly falls quiet when asked to "free" their full address and credit card number.
Finally, I am NOT trying to justify the actions of the RIAA here. I think their behaviour is completely draconian and yet another really bad PR move on their part, but I also think it's somewhat over reacting to paint them as the big mean evil bully picking on the poor little girl for no reason whatsoever. Fact remains, she HAS committed a crime. The only question is whether the punishment is fitting. Personally I would say no, it isn't. It's complete overkill, but that's the ONLY problem I have with the situation here.
Incidentally, for the triggerhappy mods out there - If you really feel you must mod this as troll or flamebait, then go ahead, but please at least think carefully about it first. Troll != Devil's Advocate
This reminds me very much of Adrian Veidt's technique of making decisions based on what he sees on a large wall of TV screens set to randomly change channels every few seconds.
By looking at the overall average of the concepts expressed in real time he estimates the moods of the markets and the population.
I always thought this was an interesting concept, and quite possibly had some potential - to extract useful information out of a kind of aggregate of real time noise. Am I making any sense here at all?
Maybe a quote will help:
"First impressions: Oiled muscleman with machinegun, cut to pastel bears, valentine hearts. Juxtaposition of wish fulfilment violence and infantile imagery, desire to regress, be free of responsibility. This all says war, we should buy accordingly"
"But sir, we've never bought into munitions"
"Of course not, you're ignoring the subtext: Increased sexual imagery, even in the candy ads. It implies an erotic undercurrent not uncommon in times of war. Remember the baby boom"
"So we should buy into uh..?"
"Into the major erotic video companies, that's short term. Also we should negotiate controlling shares in baby food and maternity goods manufacturers"
Can I just follow up your post by asking.. wtf is with the absolute fear and repulsion from sex, and reverence of violence, especially in America?
Every time I go to the US I'm weirded out by the fact that anything remotely pornographic, even images just showing topless women is kept under lock and key with armed guard, and you have to show 20 forms of ID proving you're over 18 to get anywhere near it... but they'll happily let a 6 year old see things like the Faces of Death movies (for those who don't know, it's a footage compilation of real life deaths, murders, accidents, etc)
Okay, I realise this might be a slight exaggeration, but really, if things had to go to one extreme or the other - basically either society was absolutely obsessed with one, and ignored the other, ask yourself, which would you prefer?
Me, I'd rather everyone was getting laid than killing each other, but maybe I'm just crazy
...Yet nobody even remotely considers wearing a helmet before crossing the street or climbing in the car
Hey, I'm all for it Driving helmets for soccer moms!
It'd be of absolutely no practical use whatsoever, especially as they're usually the ones who come out safe after they kill 20 people driving through a parking lot while on the phone and getting the baby's bottle, but who cares, it'd make them look ridiculous.
Maybe the helmets could be "Beware! Fucking idiot!" in big letters on the front or something. That might help safety
Okay, this is sorta OT, but this has been puzzling me for a long time.. I've been using Delphi for ages now, and I really like it.. because of my affinity with Delphi, when I learnt C++ I started using Borland C++ Builder (Basically, like Delphi, but C++ flavour) - I also use DJGPP and others, but anyways..
Delphi has a huge following.. everyone seems to like something about it, and it's extremely popular for games development.. which really leads me to wonder why almost noone uses BCB? - I think it's now been superceded by some other Borland product, but even back in it's primetime, it never seemed to gain a following, despite being, IMHO, far nicer to work with than MSVC. Was it just up against too much taking on Microsoft? or is there a reason why people don't like BCB?
I think it's called a joke. I think you're supposed to laugh.
This is obviously some strange useage of the term "joke" with which I am not familiar... could've sworn they were connected to wit or humour in some way..
This kind of security thinking is akin to hiding your head in the sand. FIX THE PROBLEM! Don't legislate bans on exploits. DESIGN SUCH THINGS SECURELY IN THE FIRST PLACE! It wouldn't be that hard to have developed it with a cryptographically secure access code system in the first place. Sheesh!
Right. So.. traffic lights. They're insecure. let's add a 256 bit encrypted wireless remote changing system. Now.. someone could tamper with the actual bulbs.. let's make those tamper proof. And bullet proof. The casing is pretty vulnerable.. let's make it out of 3 inch thick stainless steel.. and on, and on, and on.... Then everybody would be up in arms because your entire town/city/state's budget would be spent on 5 traffic lights
Doesn't it make more sense for people just not to screw with these things in the first place? Sure, it makes sense to put a certain amount of tamper resistance and security onto anything like a street light.. but it's ridiculous to go over the top..
reminds me of a recent TV program I saw (it was on C4 for any fellow brits, called Solomon) about an escapologist - almost as obnoxiously smug as David Blaine, but that's by the by.. at one point he picked the padlock on this girl's laptop case, and then proceded to go off on this smug rant about how easy it was to pick, and how she should get a bigger lock.. and she agreed.
But.. a bigger lock wouldn't help. Because personally, if I was going to steal that laptop (not that I'd do such a thing, but if..), I'd just snatch the bag, complete with lock, then cut open the bag at my leisure to get at the laptop. In that situation even a completely minimal 2 "toy" lock would do the trick - it just needs to prevent someone being able to instantly open the bag and grab the laptop. Anything more just leaves the vulnerability elsewhere.
No, if more people were like him then congested traffic would move a lot more slowly, and people would waste a lot more time stuck in traffic, instead of enjoying it with their families and doing other worthwhile things.
Can someone please explain to me why that comment was modded as 'troll'?
Slashdot moderation is performed via a simple and very effective method. The moderator uses a formula to determine the moderation performed on a post, the formula is:
Moderator's ID number * (Pi/Poster's Karma) + cos(Phase of the moon*sqrt(price of fishcakes in japan))
The result of that is then used to seed a random number generator, which then spits out either "+1: funny, or -1: Troll". Any other moderations are caused by glitches in the matrix.
Intellisense != Clippy. Clippy was (well.. is.. ugh) a "Microsoft Agent". Intellisense is MS's version of the extremely nice autocomplete/object information feature in Borland's development environments (Delphi, C++ Builder, etc)
Not using MS's development stuff, I'm not actually very familiar with Intellisense, but if it's anything like the Borland one, it'll be great. Useful, and best of all it doesn't get in your way.
Slashdot Mirror
Urgh. I can't believe I'm carrying this infernal thread on, but here we go again.
Look. Quite simply my point is this: I believe that if somebody creates something, they have the right to do with it as they wish. Including charging any amount of money they see fit for access to that thing. Thus I should be able to record a CD and sell it for a million dollars a copy. Chances are I wouldn't get any sales at that price, especially given my lack of musical talent, but that's not the point. I created it, and therefore I should be able to do as I wish with it. If people aren't willing to meet my terms, they don't get my creation. Fair? Seems so to me. After all, if it wasn't for me the thing would never have existed in the first place.
I'm not saying nothing should be free. Many great artists give away art, music, writing, software, and so on for free. This is a great thing. However, I just think it should be up to the terms of the creator.
There seems to have been a view throughout this thread (not from what you've said, but in general) that I've been defending the position of the RIAA or whatever. Not at all. My position is simply, and I state again, the creator of an artwork should be able to do with it as they wish, including controlling access to it.
The only potential problem that arises from that is if another person has a legitimate claim that they could've made the same thing themselves, and have therefore lost out on control of something they had a right to.. but that's a whole other argument.
To put it another way, you ask "Why the hell should people pay for art?"
My question is "Why the hell should artists be forced to give their work away for nothing in return"? - that IS what you're proposing by the way. In saying that all art should be freely avaliable to everyone, you're saying that the artist doesn't necessarily need to get anything in return except for a fuzzy sense of wellbeing from helping the human race, and some recognition.
Bizarrely, I suspect you might well say something about how people would pay for it anyways. If so.. you're arguing AGAINST paying for something that you're supposed to pay for. So are you now going to argue FOR paying for something that you don't have to?
Anyways, just because it's pedantic, and the world needs pedants...
As for DVDs, nowhere I said the studio should provide a free copy to everyone, just that they should not stop others from doing that. Those people who want to pay for the DVD would still do that. As for DivX and extras, how many extras can you get on P2P? Not that many, probably not more than a few dozens.
You said in an earlier post that ALL art should be avaliable freely to people should they want it. That would mean the DVD extras would also be freely avaliable to people. And because it wouldn't be illegal to distribute them, they would be avaliable much more easily (from a TLD webpage, for example.. without lots of popups and other crap), and at much higher quality (larger files easier to distribute due to no problems with legality/hosting issues. Think Animatrix*). Therefore the DVD wouldn't have much to recommend it beyond the inlay art and liner notes (Which is what scanners are for...)
Yes, I accept fans would probably still buy it. I know people who do this - they have every track from a CD downloaded as MP3, AND scans of the art, liner notes, etc, but they still go out and buy the CD. However, I don't believe enough people are like that to make it financially viable. I'll gladly be proven wrong, however. Be sure to message me with a "Told you so!" when you've made your fortune from selling freely downloadable DVDs and CDs
Really, though, what it's all about is people desperately trying to justify taking copies of things they don't actually have any right to own.
In fact, I think this whole thing could be best summed up by what I just said to my gf on IRC when she asked about this thread:
> Yeh. This p2p/copyright/etc thing
> '
Ooh.. I likey. ;)
Yes, this probably marks me for life as a sad git, but hey, I read slashdot don't I?
Anyways, this is a great idea. I wonder if there's any potential for some kind of crossover with the machinima community? It's got a lot of similar aspects - the virtual camerawork, using a game engine for real time film making. Only difference here is it's the game itself you're filming.
How much was Bach paid for distribution of his recordings? Did he have another job?
Know your history. He personally paid for his CD mastering and duplication empire which allowed him such an unparalleled ability to get his recordings out there by starting out with small business selling cellphones. In 1685.
Or maybe I'm being slightly sarcastic.
I have to take exception, by the way, with you calling NOLF2 unoriginal crap. Crap is, of course, purely subjective, and you're entitled to that opinion, but that game was groundbreaking in any number of ways (The slick 60's themed presentation, the depth of immersion created by being able to overhear to an entire conversation between two enemies, the humour in said conversations, the simple, but effective vehicles system)
Oh, and you do realise you're levelling the accusation of unoriginality at, as far as I'm aware, the only game in history to have a plot critical section where you play the 'turret' gunner in a tricycle-v.s.-unicycle chase through busy city streets?
But I digress.
There are free books in libraries, but people still pay for their own copy
Libraries != p2p. p2p allows you to obtain, and keep permanently, for free, a copyrighted work. Libraries are only a short term lending system.
[on the subject of who would fund movie production] The state, may be? Or independent sponsors.
And you'd be perfectly happy when your hard earned tax dollars were responsible for the making of another Matrix: Revolutions, or Die Hard With Even Less Plot?
As for independent sponsors - Who? Because under your rules there's basically going to be bugger all chance of a movie being profitable (Given that even with the current system of people paying for movies, many struggle to break even) there's going to be little or no return on investment. So the only potential sources that leaves is large organisations or rich individuals with a great love of the arts, or more money than sense, or both.
Same with music and movies - concerts, CDs, movie theatres and DVDs all add value to the barebones product. That's why people continue to shell out their money for art.
Uh, hang on, say what? You're now saying money will be made from people buying DVDs? I thought the DVD was going to be free, or at least, free-minus-production-costs? or that the DivX and, naturally, all the extras (because art/information should be free, right?) would be downloadable for free. So where, pray tell, is this money going to come from?
It's here
I'm going to use it to inform them of some of the exiting products and services avaliable to the internet user of today! (in other words, copy and paste from my uberspammed hotmail account, to their contact form...)
No true. Art belongs to everyone. Everyone has the right to enjoy art. That's why valuable works of art are on display, sometimes for free, in museums all over the world. Copying music == being human. Enjoying art == being human. Sharing MP3s == doing something for the betterment of mankind. Suing kids == being a slimey litiguos toad.
Right.
So, everyone should get music for free. You do realise that would mean that being a musician would then no longer be profitable? There would be no full time career musicians, only hobbyists, and even they'd all need another job, which would mean less productive output. But fine, I can cope with that.
Where it all starts to look distinctly squiffy, however, is movies. The exact same arguments could be levelled at the movie industry, so tell me, when all movies are given away for free, who's going to stump up the money to make one?
And before you start on the "We don't need no stinkin' multi million dollar hollywood blockbusters" argument, I'm basically talking about ALL films here. Yes, even those obscure indie films. An absolute shoestring budget for a movie these days is still tens of thousands of dollars.
It's very easy to fall back on the "but the movie industry is HUGE! it can't possibly disappear" argument. Simple logic dictates however, that if EVERYONE did stop paying for music or movies, the market would by and large disappear. Have you taken a look at the state of the PC games industry lately? It ain't a pretty site. Yes, look beyond the upcoming releases of doom 3 and halflife 2. Compare this pre-christmas market to that of 3 or 4 years ago. Sad fact is, the PC is suffering. There have been a lot of truely classic games (Giants: Citizen Kabuto, and Noone Lives Forever 2, to name just two) that should've sold masses, but in fact made a horrendous loss. And it wasn't for lack of people playing them. Both those games were warezed to hell and back.
I'm sorry, this is no criticism of your post, but I just realised it's 3:52 AM and I'm reading a website with discussion in which the following words can legitimately occur: ...adapt the proteosynthesis process for creating micro-polypeptide clusters that are circuit elements with highly specific binding sites for self assembly. A DNA sequence would encode an mRNA sequence that is passed to a ribsome-like micro-factory. An alphabet of tRNA units would carry heavily modified amino-acids and provide both the electrical and structural of properties of the polypeptide...
I think I need to take a very long hard look at my life.
If anyone needs me, I'll probably be in a remote temple in the north of france, wearing a simple brown habit, and chanting.
--
You DO realise how pointless a post that wa, right?
As I see it the only reason you posted that was to let everyone know the names of three of the bands you like. Given that Motorhead and Slayer are extremely well known, I can only hope you were trying to pick up some kind of obscurity kudos points with Libido Airbag.
Well, I guess it's worth something.. I know very, very few people into Libido Airbag. If you don't already have it, I'd suggest getting hold of the superb Barrel Blowjob album. Goregrind influenced cheapcore at it's finest.
Oh yeah, and you may want to consider checking out any of the following: Micropoint, Fastforward, Prosthetic Cunt, Drogheda, Monastat 7, Nasenbluten, Bloody Fist, Morbs, or any other number of similarly obscure artists.
By the way, the radio stations here are no better, but I still managed to find all that (and much, much, much more) and I'm in a terrible situation for buying music here. I live in the middle of nowhere, Scotland. Not much of ANYTHING around here.
Motorhead, I won't bother to offer an opinion on beyond the obvious: Ace of Spades is a classic.
Slayer, I used to have some respect for. Sadly, no longer. Oh well. Angel of Death, Raining Blood, War Ensemble and Dittohead are still classics.
However, that doesn't change the point that this was a staggeringly pointless post. Anyone could've said "I listen to MP3s because my chosen favourites aren't played on local radio." Oh well.
*sigh*
Yeah, figures. I missed that one.
Look at my follow up post, How many places did I point out that I was using "crime" as shorthand for infringement, civil rights violation, whatever?
Well, if it'll make you happy, to keep the record straight, replace "crime" with "copyright violation" or whatever is the appropriate terminology, IANAL. Yes, I realise this probably sounds flippant, as there is a bloody big difference between a crime and a violation, however I probably should have made clear that I was using "crime" in the very loose layman's sense of "Something that the courts would find to be worthy of some type of punitive measures"
Well thought out and argued post - just when I was starting to lose faith in slashdot, too - thanks :)
Morality does not enter into it. The RIAA can sue anyone they like, it does'nt mean the defendant is a bad person or has actually done anything "wrong". The moral argument falls flat especially when you concider the moral framework that the RIAA opporates under. Their PR about "artists rights" is cynical and hypocritical to the extreme. If you think that the RIAA is some bastion of moral fortatude, setting by example a brave a righteous vision for the soceity of the 21st century the I am afraid for you. So if you don't mind I'll just discount the "moral" argument against p2p sharing.
Please refer to "Two wrongs do not make a right"
You are again arguing that since the RIAA is immoral, it must, by logical extension, be morally just to defy them.
Basically, I agree with pretty much everything you've said. Yes. The RIAA ARE cynical and hypocritical to the extreme as regards artists rights. Yes, I entirely agree they rip off artists. If you do a bit of googling around it's quite shocking the number of famous, huge-selling artists who you assume are/were millionaires, who actually ended up in horrible debt due to bad contracts and so forth. The recording business is a nasty place, and indeed, in the case of the RIAA I believe you'd be hard pressed to find a more wretched hive of scum and villany outside of politics (which they're not even entirely outside of)
I don't believe for a moment the RIAA should be able to just drag any old kid off and sue them becuase they think they might maybe possibly be sharing some files with a similar name to what could be copyright songs. The logical extension of that is Guantanamo Bay, and please, let's not have any more of that!
I realise I'm rather going on at length here, but I suspect you've unintentionally built yourself a straw man for my argument, so let me make it completely clear:
1. By recieving and sharing with others for free the copyrighted material of another person without that person's permission, the girl in question has shown bad moral judgement.
2. In using draconian bullying tactics to make an example of said girl and try to scare other potential file traders into not sharing their music, the RIAA has shown bad moral judgement.
They are BOTH guilty, but, whether rightly or wrongly, only one has actually broken a law (/civil code/whatever the proper term is)
However, if you insist that I must rest the blame squarely on one, and fully exonerate the other by choosing which I deem to be the more morally reprehensible of the two, rest assured that I would point the finger at the RIAA.
Now, please excuse this long winded post, but two final points...
1. If this seems rambling, deluded, badly written, or faulty in logic.. well, I'm caffinated up to my eyeballs, and have been awake for about 29 hours now
2. I did mention devil's advocate previously. That may or may not mean that I do or have at some time actively participated in p2p sharing of morally dubious material. At least if, hypothetically, I had, or do, then I would accept quite cheerfully the fact that I am both immoral and hypocritical.
It's incredible how many people try to justify their use of p2p for sharing copyrighted music. Here's the bottom line. It really does not matter one bit whether it's more like sneaking into a movie theatre than theft, or any other daft analogy you can come up with. It also doesn't matter that the artists/shops/RIAA/whoever is corrupt and evil. Didn't your grandma ever tell you "Two wrongs do not make a right". The absolute bottom line is it results in you gaining something you have no legal or moral right to.
If you dispute that, please explain how this is different from the people who download full version warez under the premise "I need it to fully evaluate it" - despite the existence of a fully or almost fully functional trial version - and having these "evaluations" last.. well.. permanently.
The "Information wants to be free" argument invariably falls down when a person who'll quite glibly throw out that catchphrase suddenly falls quiet when asked to "free" their full address and credit card number.
Finally, I am NOT trying to justify the actions of the RIAA here. I think their behaviour is completely draconian and yet another really bad PR move on their part, but I also think it's somewhat over reacting to paint them as the big mean evil bully picking on the poor little girl for no reason whatsoever. Fact remains, she HAS committed a crime. The only question is whether the punishment is fitting. Personally I would say no, it isn't. It's complete overkill, but that's the ONLY problem I have with the situation here.
Incidentally, for the triggerhappy mods out there - If you really feel you must mod this as troll or flamebait, then go ahead, but please at least think carefully about it first. Troll != Devil's Advocate
This reminds me very much of Adrian Veidt's technique of making decisions based on what he sees on a large wall of TV screens set to randomly change channels every few seconds.
By looking at the overall average of the concepts expressed in real time he estimates the moods of the markets and the population.
I always thought this was an interesting concept, and quite possibly had some potential - to extract useful information out of a kind of aggregate of real time noise. Am I making any sense here at all?
Maybe a quote will help:
"First impressions: Oiled muscleman with machinegun, cut to pastel bears, valentine hearts. Juxtaposition of wish fulfilment violence and infantile imagery, desire to regress, be free of responsibility. This all says war, we should buy accordingly"
"But sir, we've never bought into munitions"
"Of course not, you're ignoring the subtext: Increased sexual imagery, even in the candy ads. It implies an erotic undercurrent not uncommon in times of war. Remember the baby boom"
"So we should buy into uh..?"
"Into the major erotic video companies, that's short term. Also we should negotiate controlling shares in baby food and maternity goods manufacturers"
Yay! Words of sense :)
Can I just follow up your post by asking.. wtf is with the absolute fear and repulsion from sex, and reverence of violence, especially in America?
Every time I go to the US I'm weirded out by the fact that anything remotely pornographic, even images just showing topless women is kept under lock and key with armed guard, and you have to show 20 forms of ID proving you're over 18 to get anywhere near it... but they'll happily let a 6 year old see things like the Faces of Death movies (for those who don't know, it's a footage compilation of real life deaths, murders, accidents, etc)
Okay, I realise this might be a slight exaggeration, but really, if things had to go to one extreme or the other - basically either society was absolutely obsessed with one, and ignored the other, ask yourself, which would you prefer?
Me, I'd rather everyone was getting laid than killing each other, but maybe I'm just crazy
...Yet nobody even remotely considers wearing a helmet before crossing the street or climbing in the car
Hey, I'm all for it
Driving helmets for soccer moms!
It'd be of absolutely no practical use whatsoever, especially as they're usually the ones who come out safe after they kill 20 people driving through a parking lot while on the phone and getting the baby's bottle, but who cares, it'd make them look ridiculous.
Maybe the helmets could be "Beware! Fucking idiot!" in big letters on the front or something. That might help safety
Who's with me?
I'd like to think of myself as an intelligent teenager. After all, one more year to go until you can't even call me that anymore.
When you turn fourteen you're getting a lobotomy?
XP -> eXPerience?
The truth is far more sinister
Now, where did I put that foil hat...
Okay, this is sorta OT, but this has been puzzling me for a long time..
I've been using Delphi for ages now, and I really like it.. because of my affinity with Delphi, when I learnt C++ I started using Borland C++ Builder (Basically, like Delphi, but C++ flavour) - I also use DJGPP and others, but anyways..
Delphi has a huge following.. everyone seems to like something about it, and it's extremely popular for games development.. which really leads me to wonder why almost noone uses BCB? - I think it's now been superceded by some other Borland product, but even back in it's primetime, it never seemed to gain a following, despite being, IMHO, far nicer to work with than MSVC. Was it just up against too much taking on Microsoft? or is there a reason why people don't like BCB?
I think it's called a joke.
I think you're supposed to laugh.
This is obviously some strange useage of the term "joke" with which I am not familiar... could've sworn they were connected to wit or humour in some way..
Yes. The GP32 uses Smartmedia. Huzzah for open platforms
Hahahhaha!
"Dilute the meritocracy"...
On Slashdot!
Ohhh gawd, stoppit, you're killing me!
Microsoft insists the timing of their bounty (pay deal) on (for) virus writers (hackers) "entirely coincidental" (damned convenient)
This kind of security thinking is akin to hiding your head in the sand. FIX THE PROBLEM! Don't legislate bans on exploits. DESIGN SUCH THINGS SECURELY IN THE FIRST PLACE! It wouldn't be that hard to have developed it with a cryptographically secure access code system in the first place. Sheesh!
Right. So.. traffic lights.
They're insecure. let's add a 256 bit encrypted wireless remote changing system.
Now.. someone could tamper with the actual bulbs.. let's make those tamper proof. And bullet proof.
The casing is pretty vulnerable.. let's make it out of 3 inch thick stainless steel..
and on, and on, and on....
Then everybody would be up in arms because your entire town/city/state's budget would be spent on 5 traffic lights
Doesn't it make more sense for people just not to screw with these things in the first place? Sure, it makes sense to put a certain amount of tamper resistance and security onto anything like a street light.. but it's ridiculous to go over the top..
reminds me of a recent TV program I saw (it was on C4 for any fellow brits, called Solomon) about an escapologist - almost as obnoxiously smug as David Blaine, but that's by the by.. at one point he picked the padlock on this girl's laptop case, and then proceded to go off on this smug rant about how easy it was to pick, and how she should get a bigger lock.. and she agreed.
But.. a bigger lock wouldn't help. Because personally, if I was going to steal that laptop (not that I'd do such a thing, but if..), I'd just snatch the bag, complete with lock, then cut open the bag at my leisure to get at the laptop. In that situation even a completely minimal 2 "toy" lock would do the trick - it just needs to prevent someone being able to instantly open the bag and grab the laptop. Anything more just leaves the vulnerability elsewhere.
No, if more people were like him then congested traffic would move a lot more slowly, and people would waste a lot more time stuck in traffic, instead of enjoying it with their families and doing other worthwhile things.
Are you sure about that?
Can someone please explain to me why that comment was modded as 'troll'?
Slashdot moderation is performed via a simple and very effective method. The moderator uses a formula to determine the moderation performed on a post, the formula is:
Moderator's ID number * (Pi/Poster's Karma) + cos(Phase of the moon*sqrt(price of fishcakes in japan))
The result of that is then used to seed a random number generator, which then spits out either "+1: funny, or -1: Troll". Any other moderations are caused by glitches in the matrix.
Hope this answers your question.
Hrmm.. that stirs vague memories from the back of my mind, but IIRC it was called DOS Shell, not Microsoft Shell - though it was made by MS.
Ugly brute, as I recall, and almost entirely useless.
I'll leave it to someone else to post the obvious "How times have changed" joke.
Intellisense != Clippy.
Clippy was (well.. is.. ugh) a "Microsoft Agent". Intellisense is MS's version of the extremely nice autocomplete/object information feature in Borland's development environments (Delphi, C++ Builder, etc)
Not using MS's development stuff, I'm not actually very familiar with Intellisense, but if it's anything like the Borland one, it'll be great. Useful, and best of all it doesn't get in your way.