Extended copyright creates stagnation though, it doesn't inspire new works, infact it makes it more appealing to stick with old ones, which results in stagnant culture for the society. Copyright was invoked to help culture, ownership was required to make profit and without profit it's commonly believed there will be fewer people doing creative works. The idea was ownership would expire at which point the creative works benefit society, and while the copyright was in effect the owner would be able to make money. After the copyright expired the former owner of the works would have to create something new thus adding to society once again. It's a well thought out cycle, those who create are able to get compensation for a time and in the long they contribute to the national culture. This was the intention of copyright law, to add incentive to new creations, not to milk old ones. The law was taken by corporate america and twisted to suit them, and is now detrimental to the public. The US government is suppose to be for the PEOPLE not the corporations. They're suppose to be enacting laws and legislation that is good for the public that's what their role is suppose to be. This is obviously no longer the case and hasn't been for a while. They now pass bills that are in the interest of corporations and not the people, the system is broken and the people get screwed. It shouldn't matter how much money a corporation has, laws should not be changed just so they can make more money. The US is run by corporations and it's wrong plain and simple.
"If You own a billion dolar company, and you think a new CEO is smart enough to make you into a two billion dolar company, then it would be stupid of you not to pay him enough for him to want the job.
It certanly makes more sense then paying sports people that kind of cash..."
The first part of your statement is fine and makes sense, I don't particularly agree with the salaries of high level management but whatever. The problem here is the second part, you claim it's reasonable to make large amounts of money if the person is potentially going to bring in more money, so how is that any different from the reason athelete makes so much money? They don't pay atheletes more than they're likely to bring in, that doesn't make any sense at all, and all pro teams would go under in that situation. Obviously the salaries of atheletes does somehow reflect what they bring in, and thus should get what they do. Personally I think it's rediculous that atheletes make what they make and they shouldn't make anything close to it, but hey if the market couldn't support it they wouldn't make it.
Well what if you're already at the store, and see an album you want, if it's $20 bucks you'd probably stop and think about it a bit, but what if it's $5 how long would you think about it then? fact is most people still get things the traditional way (going out and buying it).
except now you're paying $1 a track, and a full cd will run you about $15-$20, so about the same it costs now... but you're providing the media, and doing the replication yourself. hmm now the price is the same, but now there's no packaging, no shipping, no reproduction costs, no nice art on the CD or case. Sounds to me like they've just figured out how to keep the cost the same and totally cut their overhead resulting in larger profits for RIAA. If it's costing that much less, why isn't that saving passed on to the consumer? It's not worth the price if you ask me! should be closer to $.25.
You're right the R&D analogy is flawed, few companies blame the cost of a product on the cost of R&D of other failed and/or unrelated products. Most companies also do an analysis to see if the R&D is worth it, if it's not they stop the R&D or don't start it.
As for the marketing point, marketing isn't judged on thier decision of what product they're going to market, it's judged on how well they actually market the product. Now I'll admit they often decide to market crap movies, but when they do market them they do a good job of it. There have been very few true failures in the movie industry that have received widespread marketing. Now since this includes crap movies, then they must be marketed well, cause people obviously aren't seeing the movies based on it's merits alone.
Re:One of my favourite quotes...
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
regardless it paints a damn good picture, for god sake what's more important the quote? or whether it's attibuted properly? Maybe Caesar never said it but someone somewhere did and it's accurate to the current political situation. So I'd consider it a valid argument.
This sort of thing is really common, I used to work for a very large company, and a buddy of mine pitched some web work for them, along with several others (100's 1000's I'm not sure). Apparently the way they chose the contract was to just take the 10th highest bid, my buddy missed out cause he was like the 13th highest or something, apparently just a couple of thousand more and he would have had it.
This sort of thing does seem rediculous, but if you consider the cost the company has to put in to truly evaluate each bid, it would probably cost them tons more. I guess they're saving money by deciding quickly.
hehe you're right it is kinda funny, but I'm not an advocate of diamonds, I'm an advocate of not having your girlfriend/wife/fiance pissed at you, and you're safe getting a diamond, that's really all it's about.
Unfortuneatly, ive had situations where it guys on their high horses would not give me persmissons to install software which was essential to my job function and worked previously prior to my system being upgraded (this was at a fortune 500 company, i was working in an R&D lab) until a VP of R&D yelled at the IT staff.
yeah their high horse... well this illustrates my point exactly, not giving users (yes in spite of your holy grail engineering degree you are a USER in this case) is a very common and accepted security practice, probably even policy there so the support guys get yelled at for doing what they're suppose to, nice one!
Unfortuneatly, most non technically oriented workers don't have the knowledge or time to spend fixing their computer, hence the role of the desktop support worker.
wow really?!?! hmm good thing there are those support guys so the work that brings money in can actually get done, what would these non technical people do without them... NOTHING, and hence no money would come in.
fact is support roles are just as important in an organization as any sales, R&D (which doesn't directly bring money in either) or whatever. They're just as required to make sure the company keeps running smoothly, after all if those who's responsibility includes bringing in money can't do their job, everyone suffers. Fine you're an exception in that you can do your own support, congrats, the debate wasn't about you, there are plenty who can't. Just because you could get by without support doesn't mean everyone can. To prove it just think about all those annoying worm viri that have been going around, they require people to be stupid, even after they're warned people still opened them and caused tons of headaches for the support team trust me! oh and it's of course the IT dept. that gets blamed for any data lost because some dumb secretary double clicked an attachment within an hour of being told not to open any attachments!
So when was the last time you were called in on your vacation or a sunday morning? god some appreciation isn't really that much to ask for now is it? I should have guessed you were an engineer.
PS. I do totally agree with you on the crappy 10 months your an MCSE go get your money kind of people. Most aren't good at what they do, but then again there are few people who are.
This is so right!!! she will be nothing but disappointed unless you get her a diamond. It's not a question of rational thinking and purchasing it's not an ethical question, this is a question of romance and love. No matter what she says, she will be disappointed with anything but a diamond, don't be an idiot, get it! Yes it's been marketed that way, yes they're outrageously overpriced, yes children probably died getting it to that jewellery store, but she still believes that it symbolizes love. This kind of thing should be a no brainer, if it's not you shouldn't be getting married because either A. you don't really want to get married and are subconsciously looking to sabotage the relationship. or B. you don't know enough about women to stay married!
well I hope the IT dept. in your office reads that and the next time your comp fucks up they tell you they'll 'get to it as soon as we can' and then decide how important your job is when you can't do it! second if IT isn't important than run a good sized (even just 100 or so people) company without it see how far you get. I'm sick of people thinking their job is more important than those that support their job, just cause you're dept. brings in money doesn't make it more important than the depts. that make it possible for you to bring in money. So get off your high horse, realize those people make it possible for you to do your work and show some appreciation, cause believe me in their job all they do is catch flak.
ps. I never said IT was programming, that can be part of it but mostly it's tech support and that's all I ever refered to it as. Besides most programming positions in companies aren't commercial anyway and are still a support role. Believe me they also get crap, especially when two different directors want the same program to work different ways.
Asking "What is the value of IT?" reminds me of the admins we always have to deal with who think the fundamental activity here is having a network and computers, and that all those things everyone tries to do with their computers are just irritating distractions from idiot lusers.
spoken like a person who's never been on the support side of this issue. The admins don't think the fundamental activity is having a network and computers, they think that keeping them working is the admins' fundamental activity, and it is. It's people like you who think that your job is somehow more important, or that the admins are responsible when something happens. You're right though, they don't give a crap about your job, their's is to keep the network and systems running so you all can do your work. It's attitudes like yours that make admins attitudes' the way you describe. You're basically blaming the admin for computers not working with what you're saying here, and they blame you for the same thing. Fact is when the system goes down, it's all the workers (and management) bitching at the admins/IT dept. to get it up and running, and when they do they get bitched at for it having gone down, which is often not their fault at all!! they don't get much appreciation, even when things run smooth.
A good game designer is a huge asset and there are very few that are truly good, the problem is on most projects there isn't a need for a full time game designer, and if the person doesn't have any additional skills they aren't likely to be hired. Many companies are starting to include everyone on the team in the game design process, programmers and artists, this makes sense in some ways. Different people have a different idea of what a 'fun' game should be like, pleasing everyone (or almost everyone) on the dev team means you're that much more likely to please the customers as well, and believe me it's very satisfying having your ideas put into a game. I'm a game programmer myself, and I've been in several situations (IGDA meetings for example) where there are tons of people who want to get into the business, the first thing out of most of their mouths 'I have a great idea for a game!' the first thing out of my mouth (not like what I say matters but my boss asks the same thing) 'what can you do to contribute to the development?' most people stand there with a dumb look on their face. You are right in that the title 'game designer' doesn't mean much, and unless someone was working on several titles at once I wouldn't bat an eye at anyone who calls themselves STRICTLY a game designer. Here's a tip to everyone who has an idea for a game, get yourself some skills that a game development team can actually use get a job, work on a few titles, then talk to management about getting your game done, nobody is going to listen to you without some experience!
You're right, I think most of us here have had tech jobs or have had to help a family member fix their foobar'ed comp. and those things are necessary in these situations, but us techies can always carry one around, but the hardware companies are still going to have to support it and I guess that's what they don't want now isn't it??
yeah really, I'm sorry but saving face should be the last thing on the list when it comes to screwing with the public... I don't think politicians should be able to 'save face' after they've screwed everyone in the country over. They screw everyone but get to look good?? F-that they screwed up, make it well known and maybe the idiots won't vote them in again next time! if they look hunky dory and nobody can remember them fucking with everyone the sheep will most likely vote them in again! politics sucks cause everyone is trying to suck up to and piss on everyone else at the same time!
You are right about one thing though when you are trying to bring someone around to another way of thinking or change their mind about something, then it's important stroke their ego and give them an opportunity to change their mind gracefully, but when the decision is made, and the mistakes are law, getting off gracefully is out the window!
There is no license, they're just picking up on what the software industry started way back in the day, and we've all come to accept as the norm (unfortunately), the RIAA sees how sweet the deal is and figures they'll try it too.
A license is suppose to be essentially the sale of a product under mutually agreed conditions. The thing is now, the conditions aren't mutually agreed upon and you can't negotiate them. These products are 'licensed' in stores that have no power to negotiate either. Basically the creators of these products are using it as a way to restrict what we do with what we buy from them, which should be illegal (even in software) when we're not involved in the creation of the license, and can't possibly negotiate it. This is like your car comming with the condition that you won't drive it after 11pm or you can only use gas refined from exxon oil or something equally retarted, yet we accept this in the software world, and others (RIAA, MPAA) are trying the same thing, even though their products are already covered by copyright law, and they get 90 rediculous years to do as they please with them. They feel they should squeeze a little more out of us by saying we can't sell (or rip or whatever) the hard, physical product (cd's and dvd's) we BOUGHT from the store, and didn't negotiate the sale of with them!
no it isn't, a contract cannot permit a crime you are correct, however it is quite capable of restricting rights. By entering the contract you have agreed to waive the said rights within the limits of the contract, which everyone in the US is permited to do and it's not a crime. You can create a contract between yourself and the US government that waive's any and all your legal rights, and the government could legaly toss you in jail for pretty much whatever it wanted to, now this probably wouldn't stand up when it went to court, but the government wouldn't be found liable for any wrong doing. Most likely it would find that the contract was invalid cause you'd be crazy, but that's not the point. The point is that people in the US sign waivers all the time, many have to do it for their employment, it's not unusual by any means and perfectly legal.
It's far easier to prevent a law from getting passed then it is to get rid of a bad law after it's passed. Public pressure does work when there's enough of it, the problem we face is plain old fashioned ignorance, if people aren't aware of what is going on they sure as hell can't be expected to stop it. Now in this case the vast majority is ignorant of what's going on, they don't understand what's being asked for by the RIAA or what the possible ramifications are. Now isn't it sensible for a minority to take action that is in the better interest of the public even if the public isn't aware of it?? and since it's a minority that's taking the resposibility isn't also necessary that their actions be more extreme than if they had more public support? This isn't a case of a group thinking their beliefs are correct or more important, what they're fighting for would benefit/protect the society as a whole. What is wrong with fighting for what is good for the people?
since you mention it what other legal remedies can you think of? when is enough really enough? Fact is we're such a small group with not nearly enough financial backing to do much of anything. We're screwed, it will pass, no matter how much legal campaigning we do the only hope is that it comes before a smart judge fairly soon and gets struck down.
As for the actions of the RIAA, they're a cartel, they don't care if they offend their 'customers' or call them all criminals, they're the only ones selling their product if you want it legally you have to get it from them!! and they make sure you pay through the damn nose! never mind the fact that they charge the artists for their content and still hold all the copyrights to their works! It's the most enviable position, they charge the content providers, and charge for the sale of the content they sell!
My god you're an idiot!! you're entire argument though well written boils down to nothing more than "imperial is better because I say so" you don't have a single valid argument there, things like "it feels right" or "it's not natural" aren't arguments, they're your own personal feelings on the matter. The imperial system isn't any more or less arbitrary than any other system. It wasn't even consistent... a 'foot' was the size of the actual foot of the king, now every time the country changed kings, the size of a 'foot' changed, how is this a good system?? granted it's been standardized since, but the entire premise was rediculous. The metric system actually has a relationship with it's units, and was devised with ease of use actually in mind. virtually all conversions in metric come down to just shifting a decimal places (unless time is involved, stupid 3600 seconds in an hour, but metric time will fix that!!). not to mention there are actual relationships between the different units themselves, did you know one liter of water weighs exactly one kilogram? Now the best argument of all, WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE ENTIRE WORLD HAS SWITCH TO METRIC!!!! you really don't have any argument here, the metric system has been proven better, that's a fact... now maybe you like the imperial better and that's all well and great, but that doesn't make it a better system.
And so expensive that no hardware manufacturer wants to make it, it becomes unprofitable. The hardware will become completely obsolete. It will no longer be made, and won't be upgraded. A few years after Palladium comes out you won't be able to buy new hardware that doesn't have these DRM chips, and the ones you can get used, will be however many years old. It won't be a matter of choice, MS will require it, the hardware manufactures will make it, all the new PC's will ship with it, and over time the old PC's will get replaced with the new ones, and bye bye to your "unencumbered" hardware.
Hardware makers have no interest in making niche products where the niche has no hope of ever becoming main stream. Niches get catered to in the hopes of establishing the new companies or the new products and nurture the niche till it becomes mainstream, there is no profit in catering to a shrinking niche market, so it won't be done.
If all this does come to pass, I like you will buy the unrestricted hardware for as long as I can get it, but it will eventually go the way of the C64.
"When you stop believing that the system works, the system stops working. It's that simple. Corruption and graft are exceptions, not the rule."
boy you're an idealistic one, the system is built for corruption, it's legalized and is refered to as lobbying. Lobby and special interest groups pay congressmen to vote the way they want, it's about money and not much else. You're fooling yourself if you really think it's any different (watch the "distinguished gentleman" it is very accurate about how things work). Since it's driven by money and lobby groups, the "big picture" isn't taken into account by the lawmakers, they make the law the corporations want, how else does a country end up with a copyright that doesn't expire for 95 years? or patents on the most rediculous of ideas, or methods? Or laws such as the DMCA, or how about the RIAA wanting a piece of used cd sales? the fact that companies even think they can get away with trying to get such laws is laughable, what's worse they could succeed. As for the "big picture" if people can't understand how the technology works or what it does, they can't possibly see the ramifications laws dealing with that technology can have on the "big picture." They don't need to be experts, but they should have some understanding of the matters, and the consequences.
You also had the choice when buying the DVD player at the time, if the only option when buying a new DVD player was DIVX, people would have bought it. We were also lucky we got away from it because it was a new and expensive technology and the people who were buying it were technophiles that knew what they were buying did the research, and knew what DIVX was all about. This isn't going to be the case with an already existing product (PC's). They're already cheap, and purchased by the masses who don't do the research don't know what they're buying or what it can really be used for. If you're in the market for a PC and don't really know what you want/need or what's available, you're going to end up with the latest windows. PC's don't have a small niche well informed market to insolate the users, the way DVD players did back in the day.
You my friend are truly naive if you believe your representatives make wise decisions based on what's best for their constituents or even the public as a whole. They do what's best for themselves, and what will keep their campaign contributers happy. I would also argue generally when it comes to any technology based bill the people here on slashdot probably have a better understanding of the issue than the majority of congress, and the majority of the population as a whole. Since, however, we're in the minority, the uninformed masses get to make the decision, or rather not notice/care when the decision is made. You're right, representatives aren't there to do what you want, they're there to do what's best for society and the general public, now do you really think they do? or do they just do what's best for their wallet?
Slashdot Mirror
Extended copyright creates stagnation though, it doesn't inspire new works, infact it makes it more appealing to stick with old ones, which results in stagnant culture for the society. Copyright was invoked to help culture, ownership was required to make profit and without profit it's commonly believed there will be fewer people doing creative works. The idea was ownership would expire at which point the creative works benefit society, and while the copyright was in effect the owner would be able to make money. After the copyright expired the former owner of the works would have to create something new thus adding to society once again. It's a well thought out cycle, those who create are able to get compensation for a time and in the long they contribute to the national culture. This was the intention of copyright law, to add incentive to new creations, not to milk old ones. The law was taken by corporate america and twisted to suit them, and is now detrimental to the public. The US government is suppose to be for the PEOPLE not the corporations. They're suppose to be enacting laws and legislation that is good for the public that's what their role is suppose to be. This is obviously no longer the case and hasn't been for a while. They now pass bills that are in the interest of corporations and not the people, the system is broken and the people get screwed. It shouldn't matter how much money a corporation has, laws should not be changed just so they can make more money. The US is run by corporations and it's wrong plain and simple.
"If You own a billion dolar company, and you think a new CEO is smart enough to make you into a two billion dolar company, then it would be stupid of you not to pay him enough for him to want the job.
It certanly makes more sense then paying sports people that kind of cash..."
The first part of your statement is fine and makes sense, I don't particularly agree with the salaries of high level management but whatever. The problem here is the second part, you claim it's reasonable to make large amounts of money if the person is potentially going to bring in more money, so how is that any different from the reason athelete makes so much money? They don't pay atheletes more than they're likely to bring in, that doesn't make any sense at all, and all pro teams would go under in that situation. Obviously the salaries of atheletes does somehow reflect what they bring in, and thus should get what they do. Personally I think it's rediculous that atheletes make what they make and they shouldn't make anything close to it, but hey if the market couldn't support it they wouldn't make it.
Well what if you're already at the store, and see an album you want, if it's $20 bucks you'd probably stop and think about it a bit, but what if it's $5 how long would you think about it then? fact is most people still get things the traditional way (going out and buying it).
except now you're paying $1 a track, and a full cd will run you about $15-$20, so about the same it costs now... but you're providing the media, and doing the replication yourself. hmm now the price is the same, but now there's no packaging, no shipping, no reproduction costs, no nice art on the CD or case. Sounds to me like they've just figured out how to keep the cost the same and totally cut their overhead resulting in larger profits for RIAA. If it's costing that much less, why isn't that saving passed on to the consumer? It's not worth the price if you ask me! should be closer to $.25.
As for the marketing point, marketing isn't judged on thier decision of what product they're going to market, it's judged on how well they actually market the product. Now I'll admit they often decide to market crap movies, but when they do market them they do a good job of it. There have been very few true failures in the movie industry that have received widespread marketing. Now since this includes crap movies, then they must be marketed well, cause people obviously aren't seeing the movies based on it's merits alone.
regardless it paints a damn good picture, for god sake what's more important the quote? or whether it's attibuted properly? Maybe Caesar never said it but someone somewhere did and it's accurate to the current political situation. So I'd consider it a valid argument.
This sort of thing is really common, I used to work for a very large company, and a buddy of mine pitched some web work for them, along with several others (100's 1000's I'm not sure). Apparently the way they chose the contract was to just take the 10th highest bid, my buddy missed out cause he was like the 13th highest or something, apparently just a couple of thousand more and he would have had it. This sort of thing does seem rediculous, but if you consider the cost the company has to put in to truly evaluate each bid, it would probably cost them tons more. I guess they're saving money by deciding quickly.
hehe you're right it is kinda funny, but I'm not an advocate of diamonds, I'm an advocate of not having your girlfriend/wife/fiance pissed at you, and you're safe getting a diamond, that's really all it's about.
yeah their high horse... well this illustrates my point exactly, not giving users (yes in spite of your holy grail engineering degree you are a USER in this case) is a very common and accepted security practice, probably even policy there so the support guys get yelled at for doing what they're suppose to, nice one!
Unfortuneatly, most non technically oriented workers don't have the knowledge or time to spend fixing their computer, hence the role of the desktop support worker.
wow really?!?! hmm good thing there are those support guys so the work that brings money in can actually get done, what would these non technical people do without them... NOTHING, and hence no money would come in.
fact is support roles are just as important in an organization as any sales, R&D (which doesn't directly bring money in either) or whatever. They're just as required to make sure the company keeps running smoothly, after all if those who's responsibility includes bringing in money can't do their job, everyone suffers. Fine you're an exception in that you can do your own support, congrats, the debate wasn't about you, there are plenty who can't. Just because you could get by without support doesn't mean everyone can. To prove it just think about all those annoying worm viri that have been going around, they require people to be stupid, even after they're warned people still opened them and caused tons of headaches for the support team trust me! oh and it's of course the IT dept. that gets blamed for any data lost because some dumb secretary double clicked an attachment within an hour of being told not to open any attachments!
So when was the last time you were called in on your vacation or a sunday morning? god some appreciation isn't really that much to ask for now is it? I should have guessed you were an engineer.
PS. I do totally agree with you on the crappy 10 months your an MCSE go get your money kind of people. Most aren't good at what they do, but then again there are few people who are.
This is so right!!! she will be nothing but disappointed unless you get her a diamond. It's not a question of rational thinking and purchasing it's not an ethical question, this is a question of romance and love. No matter what she says, she will be disappointed with anything but a diamond, don't be an idiot, get it! Yes it's been marketed that way, yes they're outrageously overpriced, yes children probably died getting it to that jewellery store, but she still believes that it symbolizes love. This kind of thing should be a no brainer, if it's not you shouldn't be getting married because either A. you don't really want to get married and are subconsciously looking to sabotage the relationship. or B. you don't know enough about women to stay married!
ps. I never said IT was programming, that can be part of it but mostly it's tech support and that's all I ever refered to it as. Besides most programming positions in companies aren't commercial anyway and are still a support role. Believe me they also get crap, especially when two different directors want the same program to work different ways.
spoken like a person who's never been on the support side of this issue. The admins don't think the fundamental activity is having a network and computers, they think that keeping them working is the admins' fundamental activity, and it is. It's people like you who think that your job is somehow more important, or that the admins are responsible when something happens. You're right though, they don't give a crap about your job, their's is to keep the network and systems running so you all can do your work. It's attitudes like yours that make admins attitudes' the way you describe. You're basically blaming the admin for computers not working with what you're saying here, and they blame you for the same thing. Fact is when the system goes down, it's all the workers (and management) bitching at the admins/IT dept. to get it up and running, and when they do they get bitched at for it having gone down, which is often not their fault at all!! they don't get much appreciation, even when things run smooth.
A good game designer is a huge asset and there are very few that are truly good, the problem is on most projects there isn't a need for a full time game designer, and if the person doesn't have any additional skills they aren't likely to be hired. Many companies are starting to include everyone on the team in the game design process, programmers and artists, this makes sense in some ways. Different people have a different idea of what a 'fun' game should be like, pleasing everyone (or almost everyone) on the dev team means you're that much more likely to please the customers as well, and believe me it's very satisfying having your ideas put into a game. I'm a game programmer myself, and I've been in several situations (IGDA meetings for example) where there are tons of people who want to get into the business, the first thing out of most of their mouths 'I have a great idea for a game!' the first thing out of my mouth (not like what I say matters but my boss asks the same thing) 'what can you do to contribute to the development?' most people stand there with a dumb look on their face. You are right in that the title 'game designer' doesn't mean much, and unless someone was working on several titles at once I wouldn't bat an eye at anyone who calls themselves STRICTLY a game designer. Here's a tip to everyone who has an idea for a game, get yourself some skills that a game development team can actually use get a job, work on a few titles, then talk to management about getting your game done, nobody is going to listen to you without some experience!
You're right, I think most of us here have had tech jobs or have had to help a family member fix their foobar'ed comp. and those things are necessary in these situations, but us techies can always carry one around, but the hardware companies are still going to have to support it and I guess that's what they don't want now isn't it??
You are right about one thing though when you are trying to bring someone around to another way of thinking or change their mind about something, then it's important stroke their ego and give them an opportunity to change their mind gracefully, but when the decision is made, and the mistakes are law, getting off gracefully is out the window!
A license is suppose to be essentially the sale of a product under mutually agreed conditions. The thing is now, the conditions aren't mutually agreed upon and you can't negotiate them. These products are 'licensed' in stores that have no power to negotiate either. Basically the creators of these products are using it as a way to restrict what we do with what we buy from them, which should be illegal (even in software) when we're not involved in the creation of the license, and can't possibly negotiate it. This is like your car comming with the condition that you won't drive it after 11pm or you can only use gas refined from exxon oil or something equally retarted, yet we accept this in the software world, and others (RIAA, MPAA) are trying the same thing, even though their products are already covered by copyright law, and they get 90 rediculous years to do as they please with them. They feel they should squeeze a little more out of us by saying we can't sell (or rip or whatever) the hard, physical product (cd's and dvd's) we BOUGHT from the store, and didn't negotiate the sale of with them!
no it isn't, a contract cannot permit a crime you are correct, however it is quite capable of restricting rights. By entering the contract you have agreed to waive the said rights within the limits of the contract, which everyone in the US is permited to do and it's not a crime. You can create a contract between yourself and the US government that waive's any and all your legal rights, and the government could legaly toss you in jail for pretty much whatever it wanted to, now this probably wouldn't stand up when it went to court, but the government wouldn't be found liable for any wrong doing. Most likely it would find that the contract was invalid cause you'd be crazy, but that's not the point. The point is that people in the US sign waivers all the time, many have to do it for their employment, it's not unusual by any means and perfectly legal.
since you mention it what other legal remedies can you think of? when is enough really enough? Fact is we're such a small group with not nearly enough financial backing to do much of anything. We're screwed, it will pass, no matter how much legal campaigning we do the only hope is that it comes before a smart judge fairly soon and gets struck down.
As for the actions of the RIAA, they're a cartel, they don't care if they offend their 'customers' or call them all criminals, they're the only ones selling their product if you want it legally you have to get it from them!! and they make sure you pay through the damn nose! never mind the fact that they charge the artists for their content and still hold all the copyrights to their works! It's the most enviable position, they charge the content providers, and charge for the sale of the content they sell!
yes but people age 1-30 aren't the majority of the population now a days.
But then we'd have an extra months rent to pay!!
My god you're an idiot!! you're entire argument though well written boils down to nothing more than "imperial is better because I say so" you don't have a single valid argument there, things like "it feels right" or "it's not natural" aren't arguments, they're your own personal feelings on the matter. The imperial system isn't any more or less arbitrary than any other system. It wasn't even consistent... a 'foot' was the size of the actual foot of the king, now every time the country changed kings, the size of a 'foot' changed, how is this a good system?? granted it's been standardized since, but the entire premise was rediculous. The metric system actually has a relationship with it's units, and was devised with ease of use actually in mind. virtually all conversions in metric come down to just shifting a decimal places (unless time is involved, stupid 3600 seconds in an hour, but metric time will fix that!!). not to mention there are actual relationships between the different units themselves, did you know one liter of water weighs exactly one kilogram? Now the best argument of all, WHY THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE ENTIRE WORLD HAS SWITCH TO METRIC!!!! you really don't have any argument here, the metric system has been proven better, that's a fact... now maybe you like the imperial better and that's all well and great, but that doesn't make it a better system.
Hardware makers have no interest in making niche products where the niche has no hope of ever becoming main stream. Niches get catered to in the hopes of establishing the new companies or the new products and nurture the niche till it becomes mainstream, there is no profit in catering to a shrinking niche market, so it won't be done.
If all this does come to pass, I like you will buy the unrestricted hardware for as long as I can get it, but it will eventually go the way of the C64.
boy you're an idealistic one, the system is built for corruption, it's legalized and is refered to as lobbying. Lobby and special interest groups pay congressmen to vote the way they want, it's about money and not much else. You're fooling yourself if you really think it's any different (watch the "distinguished gentleman" it is very accurate about how things work). Since it's driven by money and lobby groups, the "big picture" isn't taken into account by the lawmakers, they make the law the corporations want, how else does a country end up with a copyright that doesn't expire for 95 years? or patents on the most rediculous of ideas, or methods? Or laws such as the DMCA, or how about the RIAA wanting a piece of used cd sales? the fact that companies even think they can get away with trying to get such laws is laughable, what's worse they could succeed. As for the "big picture" if people can't understand how the technology works or what it does, they can't possibly see the ramifications laws dealing with that technology can have on the "big picture." They don't need to be experts, but they should have some understanding of the matters, and the consequences.
You also had the choice when buying the DVD player at the time, if the only option when buying a new DVD player was DIVX, people would have bought it. We were also lucky we got away from it because it was a new and expensive technology and the people who were buying it were technophiles that knew what they were buying did the research, and knew what DIVX was all about. This isn't going to be the case with an already existing product (PC's). They're already cheap, and purchased by the masses who don't do the research don't know what they're buying or what it can really be used for. If you're in the market for a PC and don't really know what you want/need or what's available, you're going to end up with the latest windows. PC's don't have a small niche well informed market to insolate the users, the way DVD players did back in the day.
You my friend are truly naive if you believe your representatives make wise decisions based on what's best for their constituents or even the public as a whole. They do what's best for themselves, and what will keep their campaign contributers happy. I would also argue generally when it comes to any technology based bill the people here on slashdot probably have a better understanding of the issue than the majority of congress, and the majority of the population as a whole. Since, however, we're in the minority, the uninformed masses get to make the decision, or rather not notice/care when the decision is made. You're right, representatives aren't there to do what you want, they're there to do what's best for society and the general public, now do you really think they do? or do they just do what's best for their wallet?