"I'm seeing his argument as suggesting that this is about price and he, quite rightly, arguing that it isn't (much.) - ie he's saying I'm arguing that Slashdotters would be more willing to pay if the price was lower. I don't see how that can be read into my statement "
Hmm. Actually I was trying to make the argument that people would pay if the price was more reasonable. I was under the impression that you're saying people don't want to pay for it at all. If I thought you were saying "people would be willing to pay some but not as much as the RIAA was asking", my response wouldn't have been a rebuttal, but more of a supporting statement.
I don't see the point. You're intent on arguing with me on a detail that has no bearing on the outcome of what I said.
I have taken a little time to think about where you're coming from though. I reread my original post, and I have one regret.
"Ditch your view that people only download Mp3s to avoid spending money and maybe, just maybe, you won't be labeled that. If anything, people are avoiding being overcharged."
Wish I had been a little more tactful there. I'm sorry about that. I was thinking about why you'd get so shitty with me in the first place and it occured to me that you've probably gotten all sorts of hostile babble from some of the Slashtrolls, and what I said there probably sounded just like that. I've been there. I failed to take that into consideration.
"That being said, though, I think we do have to remember that some people use Kazaa et all in lieu of purchasing music. While the RIAA has gone too far in many respects, they do have a point. There are a lot of people out there who pirate music instead of buying any."
There are some people like that, no argument there. The question is whether or not a lot of them are. I don't think that question is so easy to answer. There are a few more interesting questions too:
- How many people are downloading songs that they already have CDs to?
- How many people are downloading songs they've heard on the radio?
- How many people are downloading replacement songs, i.e. songs that they had a long time ago but were stolen or something.
- How many people are downloading songs from albums of bands they've heard of, but were never interested in buying a full album to?
- How many people are downloading just that one good song out of an album because the rest are garbage?
- How many people are downloading music because the RIAA pissed them off and they refuse to do business with them anymore?
= How many people have downloaded a ton of Mp3s that they've never played before, but never listen to either?
I don't mean to imply those are all legit, but I think understanding the various reasons people download music in the first place is crucial to both measuring the true damage due to piracy and to understanding what the RIAA could be doing to save itself from it. If people are downloading music because their media is damaged, shouldn't the RIAA be looking at a media replacement program?
In any case, I see your point and respect it. (no flames here!;)) But I do think that understanding these questions I've asked would be rather enlightening for all. They also explain why people get pissy when the RIAA calls them thieves.
"So, basically, you read into my argument something that wasn't there, and you're blaming me for that? "
I didn't read past that. If you can't accept the idea that you left too much to the imagination, then I really don't see a whole lot of point in reading anything else you say. Honestly dude, this Rimmeresque 'blame everybody but yourself' attitude is hard to deal with when one has a head cold.
"Sorry, where does it say anything about price in the above? I can't see it. I can't see anything there suggesting price comes into the issue at all. "
So what did you mean then? You're saying they don't want the money to go from them to the artists. What motivation is for that to take place if they don't want to pay for it? Even if you have some rationilization, how can you expect that people wouldn't default to the commonly held belief that if people don't want to give money to the artists that they don't want to pay the price?
Honestly dude, this is your failing here.
"Oh really. I believe what I said was that I had made the statement, in the past, that artists deserved to be paid for what they create, and had been flamed."
You originally said that Slashdotters don't want to pay for it. The only thing you said about the artists getting paid is that you think Slashdotters want them paid as long as it doesn't come out of their own pocket. I'm sure you didn't mean it to come out that way, but it did. To just about anybody reading this forum, that reads as "nobody wants to pay for music" because it's a commonly held argument here. Common sense should dictate that if you hold an inflammatory point of view you should be careful about how you present yourself.
"You chose to make up an explanation rather than take what I said at face value."
Right. Put whatever spin you want on it, interpretation is not the same as making things up.
"Of course, if you were that desperate for an explanation, my recent posting history would have sufficed."
Perhaps. However, twice you have had the opportunity to point everybody at the thread you were referring to. You had to be challenged twice in order to get that. Communications failure? Yep, I think so. Couldn't just say "people flame me for having a perceived pro-RIAA view, here's a thread where it happened so you can see what I mean"? You'd think that somebody who is as misinerpreted as you claim you are would be more descriptive.
"But no, apparently if I explain that I was being flamed for merely advocating artists getting their due, that isn't enough..."
Shoulda said that originally, which is what this discussion is about. I understand what you mean, now that I've had to drag the explanation out of you. You're still failing to understand that your original post was too vague. I'm not the least bit surprised you get flamed. If you leave blanks open, people will fill them. Can't expect them not to, nor can you push your failings onto them.
" and you're prone to make up reasons rather than click twice to investigate. Is this the way you usually argue?"
Interpretation is not the same as making things up. If somebody draws a circle and somebody comes along and says "nice ball", they can't be accused of making stuff up if the person who draw it had the sun in mind. Would you like me to point out that your debate style involves discrediting me instead of listening and pointing out where I'm wrong? Would that get us anywhere? Nope. It'd get us into an argument.
"My assumption is based upon the fact that I was flamed. The flames occured BEFORE I made the assumption. Geddit? "
Yeah, I 'geddit'. You said something vague, the blanks were filled in, and you think that's everybody's fault but your own. Now, if we can just get you to see that you could learn from it and make posts clearer so you don't get flamed.
"I don't know. Certainly not I, the word "price" didn't appear in anything I wrote. "
Here's what you said:
"I guess it may be that the average slashdotter want the artists to be paid......as long as it's not the listeners who have to pay them."
You were no clearer than that. You also mentioned 'stooge of the RIAA'. You have no reasonable expectation that I could have known what you really meant. My misinterpreation of your quote was a direct result of your own inadequate explanation of what happened.
"Excuse me, nitwit, but again you've misquoted me, put words in my mouth, and put the cart before the horse."
Honestly dude, grow up. Your original post reads that way, that ain't my fault. Spare me the name calling.
" I said that when I've said artists should be paid for their work, I have been flamed. I've drawn the conclusion from that that Slashdotters, as a group, don't believe they should pay the artists. That's a perfectly legitimate conclusion to draw when you say things like "People who make use of an artists work have a moral obligation to live up to the terms under which that work was created in an environment where there are copyright laws" and you get blasted back with "I'll use whatever the hell I want, I don't see why artists should have any special rights". "
Finally, some detail.
I haven't seen your other posts, so I can only speculate here as I mentioned in my last post. First off, your assumption is ill-based. That's probably why you're getting flamed. "Slashdotters don't want to pay the artists" reads like "people are basically dishonest", and "people have an obligation to live up to the terms and conditions of sale" reads like "accept your copy restricted CDs like a good little sheep." That's probably not what you wanted them to read, but I guarantee you, that's an extreme likelyhood. I've seen plenty of people modded up for delivering the same message you have about observing the artist's ToS. Conincidentally, they didn't come to extreme conclusions about Slashdotters.
There's a very good reason why people don't like the ToS of CD buying. It's called consumer demand. And because the RIAA has a monopoly on this particular market, they don't have to do anything but sell what they like, which happens to be at a premium. They don't respond to demand. As a result, people aren't getting what they want.
I agree that there are some people who don't want to pay anybody for anything. However, just remember that only the people who feel really really strongly about something are going to post. I mean seriously, all those people who read your post, and only one or two flamed you for it... does that really mean that the whole Slashdot population doesn't want to spend money? Piece of advice: Never use the number of loudmouthes to measure anything. Certainly don't apply their values to anything I've said, I didn't vote for them to represent me.
I don't mind if you disagree with me, but I don't want to argue you about who wants to compensate who for what. I don't think I can convince you to see my side of it. I just want you to understand why you are probably getting flamed. You're drawing conclusions and making harsh assumptions about people, a lot of them with tons of albums sitting in their closets. Maybe you could get your view out there to be a little more understood if you'd be more tactful in your posts.
"And non-fair-use, which I have been arguing against, making use of others works you haven't paid for without their permission, is generally screwing the artists, not screwing the RIAA. "
Not that I want to get dragged into this type of debate, but what people want here are services like Apple's iTunes. Fast, high quality music downloads with a decent codec. (iTunes would be a dream if it supported Mp3). The huge success of that service really should tell you something. It should
"The primary goal of an artist should be to create art works by all means necessary...To worry about if an artist gets paid or not is pure reactionary bullshit. If the individual had no intention of paying in the first place, who cares? The art exists and is accessible, an artist is happy. "
Perhaps, but that's only one flavor of artist. Some use their creative skills in order to make a living. Art is not simply a manifestation of self-expression, it is also used for entertainment, something people pay quite a bit for. There is demand for entertainment out there, and people like musicians fill it because it is something they are talented at.
You do have a point, but it's only limited to a segment of the artist population. If they set out to entertain, and they accomplish that, there's nothing wrong with them expecting to be paid in return.
It's a pity that the RIAA doesn't compensate the artists like they should.
"...as long as it's not the listeners who have to pay them."
Who says it's about price? The same people who want P2P also throw lots of money at neat little devices such as iPods. Money's not the focus here.
"Call me embittered, cynical, and pissed off, but when I've posted something similar, I've tended to get flamed as a "stooge of the RIAA"."
I can only speculate, but I think you get 'stooge of the RIAA' label because they make harsh assumptions about people's behaviour. "I'm a pirate simply because I own a CD Burner? I downloaded a song because I've never heard this band before and I'm a thief? WTF?" If you're telling people (like you did in your post here) that they're unwilling to pay for anything then I wouldn't be a bit surprised that you've been labeled that way. The money is there ready to be spent on artists who supply what people want. The demand is there, now where's the supply?
Ditch your view that people only download Mp3s to avoid spending money and maybe, just maybe, you won't be labeled that. If anything, people are avoiding being overcharged. There is no middle ground here. You can get it free off P2P, or you can pay too much money for an album containing stuff you don't want. Until the RIAA brings on the supply, the people are going to fulfill their own demand. That's why they're sensitive about it. Fight back againt a monpolistic entity and get labeled a thief. Fun.
Offtopic? Pardon me for making a joke. Afterall, Adventure is the first game to have an easter egg. We wouldn't want to go discussing that now, would we?
I found an easter egg in Quake 3. What you do is you go into a multiplayer game of Capture the Flag. Then, get really really good at using the railgun. Once you reach a certain level of accuracy, the game will call you a 'faggot camper'!
"The problem then, of course, is that you would then have to either buy the component connection kit and have an HDTV or connect an outboard transcoder to convert to VGA, OR buy one of the Xbox VGA adapters that are being made...any way you slice it, of course, you're spending a lot more for less functionality. "
I'm having a seriously difficult time imagining somebody with an HDTV setup today who wants a bargain basement pc.
"ill it play games with the graphical qualities of Halo, JSRF, or Brute Force?"
Does the quality of Halo, JSRF, or Brute Force suddenly increase when you mod the thing?
While we're on the topic of graphical quality, I don't remember 733 machines with 64 meg of RAM having the video quality of Halo. Face facts, the XBOX isn't going to be much of a gaming machine after being hacked. And without games to play on it, the graphic system of it isn't all that useful.
Sorry, not sold. This quest to hack the XBOX is going to land people in jail as well as validate to the industry that these type of mechanisms have to be in place.
"I think it's silly to expect a $300 PC that is being marketed as a server to be designed for a top-end video subsystem."
I think it's silly to expect that anybody's going to hack the XBOX and do anything interesting with that graphics sub-system. You expectin a flurry of indie games or something?
"Sure, you get for $300 a full powered server machine...but it has no AGP slot. So much for gaming..."
This problem is not solved on the XBOX. You want games on the XBOX? Buy XBOX games, no need to mod it.
Also, you only get NTSC out on it. No VGA out. So forget doing anything command-line based.
Honestly, I don't understand the appeal of the XBOX for hacking. I have a feeling that if you removed the "it screws MS!" factor of it, then the only people left who'd want to hack it would be people who want to run MAME. I don't have a problem with that, but technically a lot of the people there would be doing so illegally.
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm seeing his argument as suggesting that this is about price and he, quite rightly, arguing that it isn't (much.) - ie he's saying I'm arguing that Slashdotters would be more willing to pay if the price was lower. I don't see how that can be read into my statement "
Hmm. Actually I was trying to make the argument that people would pay if the price was more reasonable. I was under the impression that you're saying people don't want to pay for it at all. If I thought you were saying "people would be willing to pay some but not as much as the RIAA was asking", my response wouldn't have been a rebuttal, but more of a supporting statement.
That clear things up a bit?
" read the thing you just ignored, "
I don't see the point. You're intent on arguing with me on a detail that has no bearing on the outcome of what I said.
I have taken a little time to think about where you're coming from though. I reread my original post, and I have one regret.
"Ditch your view that people only download Mp3s to avoid spending money and maybe, just maybe, you won't be labeled that. If anything, people are avoiding being overcharged."
Wish I had been a little more tactful there. I'm sorry about that. I was thinking about why you'd get so shitty with me in the first place and it occured to me that you've probably gotten all sorts of hostile babble from some of the Slashtrolls, and what I said there probably sounded just like that. I've been there. I failed to take that into consideration.
Oh well, life goes on.
Hey! Look at this It's somebody who can explain their point of view! You should read that.
"That being said, though, I think we do have to remember that some people use Kazaa et all in lieu of purchasing music. While the RIAA has gone too far in many respects, they do have a point. There are a lot of people out there who pirate music instead of buying any."
;)) But I do think that understanding these questions I've asked would be rather enlightening for all. They also explain why people get pissy when the RIAA calls them thieves.
There are some people like that, no argument there. The question is whether or not a lot of them are. I don't think that question is so easy to answer. There are a few more interesting questions too:
- How many people are downloading songs that they already have CDs to?
- How many people are downloading songs they've heard on the radio?
- How many people are downloading replacement songs, i.e. songs that they had a long time ago but were stolen or something.
- How many people are downloading songs from albums of bands they've heard of, but were never interested in buying a full album to?
- How many people are downloading just that one good song out of an album because the rest are garbage?
- How many people are downloading music because the RIAA pissed them off and they refuse to do business with them anymore?
= How many people have downloaded a ton of Mp3s that they've never played before, but never listen to either?
I don't mean to imply those are all legit, but I think understanding the various reasons people download music in the first place is crucial to both measuring the true damage due to piracy and to understanding what the RIAA could be doing to save itself from it. If people are downloading music because their media is damaged, shouldn't the RIAA be looking at a media replacement program?
In any case, I see your point and respect it. (no flames here!
Cheers
"So, basically, you read into my argument something that wasn't there, and you're blaming me for that? "
I didn't read past that. If you can't accept the idea that you left too much to the imagination, then I really don't see a whole lot of point in reading anything else you say. Honestly dude, this Rimmeresque 'blame everybody but yourself' attitude is hard to deal with when one has a head cold.
"Sorry, where does it say anything about price in the above? I can't see it. I can't see anything there suggesting price comes into the issue at all. "
..."
So what did you mean then? You're saying they don't want the money to go from them to the artists. What motivation is for that to take place if they don't want to pay for it? Even if you have some rationilization, how can you expect that people wouldn't default to the commonly held belief that if people don't want to give money to the artists that they don't want to pay the price?
Honestly dude, this is your failing here.
"Oh really. I believe what I said was that I had made the statement, in the past, that artists deserved to be paid for what they create, and had been flamed."
You originally said that Slashdotters don't want to pay for it. The only thing you said about the artists getting paid is that you think Slashdotters want them paid as long as it doesn't come out of their own pocket. I'm sure you didn't mean it to come out that way, but it did. To just about anybody reading this forum, that reads as "nobody wants to pay for music" because it's a commonly held argument here. Common sense should dictate that if you hold an inflammatory point of view you should be careful about how you present yourself.
"You chose to make up an explanation rather than take what I said at face value."
Right. Put whatever spin you want on it, interpretation is not the same as making things up.
"Of course, if you were that desperate for an explanation, my recent posting history would have sufficed."
Perhaps. However, twice you have had the opportunity to point everybody at the thread you were referring to. You had to be challenged twice in order to get that. Communications failure? Yep, I think so. Couldn't just say "people flame me for having a perceived pro-RIAA view, here's a thread where it happened so you can see what I mean"? You'd think that somebody who is as misinerpreted as you claim you are would be more descriptive.
"But no, apparently if I explain that I was being flamed for merely advocating artists getting their due, that isn't enough
Shoulda said that originally, which is what this discussion is about. I understand what you mean, now that I've had to drag the explanation out of you. You're still failing to understand that your original post was too vague. I'm not the least bit surprised you get flamed. If you leave blanks open, people will fill them. Can't expect them not to, nor can you push your failings onto them.
" and you're prone to make up reasons rather than click twice to investigate. Is this the way you usually argue?"
Interpretation is not the same as making things up. If somebody draws a circle and somebody comes along and says "nice ball", they can't be accused of making stuff up if the person who draw it had the sun in mind. Would you like me to point out that your debate style involves discrediting me instead of listening and pointing out where I'm wrong? Would that get us anywhere? Nope. It'd get us into an argument.
"My assumption is based upon the fact that I was flamed. The flames occured BEFORE I made the assumption. Geddit? "
Yeah, I 'geddit'. You said something vague, the blanks were filled in, and you think that's everybody's fault but your own. Now, if we can just get you to see that you could learn from it and make posts clearer so you don't get flamed.
"Read. Then reply."
Practice what you preach.
"To make your vote count, you must perform the extrememly complicated task of marking the circle next to their name."
I would have found that amusing if the term 'hanging chad' didn't spring to mind.
"I don't know. Certainly not I, the word "price" didn't appear in anything I wrote. "
...as long as it's not the listeners who have to pay them."
Here's what you said:
"I guess it may be that the average slashdotter want the artists to be paid...
You were no clearer than that. You also mentioned 'stooge of the RIAA'. You have no reasonable expectation that I could have known what you really meant. My misinterpreation of your quote was a direct result of your own inadequate explanation of what happened.
"Excuse me, nitwit, but again you've misquoted me, put words in my mouth, and put the cart before the horse."
Honestly dude, grow up. Your original post reads that way, that ain't my fault. Spare me the name calling.
" I said that when I've said artists should be paid for their work, I have been flamed. I've drawn the conclusion from that that Slashdotters, as a group, don't believe they should pay the artists. That's a perfectly legitimate conclusion to draw when you say things like "People who make use of an artists work have a moral obligation to live up to the terms under which that work was created in an environment where there are copyright laws" and you get blasted back with "I'll use whatever the hell I want, I don't see why artists should have any special rights". "
Finally, some detail.
I haven't seen your other posts, so I can only speculate here as I mentioned in my last post. First off, your assumption is ill-based. That's probably why you're getting flamed. "Slashdotters don't want to pay the artists" reads like "people are basically dishonest", and "people have an obligation to live up to the terms and conditions of sale" reads like "accept your copy restricted CDs like a good little sheep." That's probably not what you wanted them to read, but I guarantee you, that's an extreme likelyhood. I've seen plenty of people modded up for delivering the same message you have about observing the artist's ToS. Conincidentally, they didn't come to extreme conclusions about Slashdotters.
There's a very good reason why people don't like the ToS of CD buying. It's called consumer demand. And because the RIAA has a monopoly on this particular market, they don't have to do anything but sell what they like, which happens to be at a premium. They don't respond to demand. As a result, people aren't getting what they want.
I agree that there are some people who don't want to pay anybody for anything. However, just remember that only the people who feel really really strongly about something are going to post. I mean seriously, all those people who read your post, and only one or two flamed you for it... does that really mean that the whole Slashdot population doesn't want to spend money? Piece of advice: Never use the number of loudmouthes to measure anything. Certainly don't apply their values to anything I've said, I didn't vote for them to represent me.
I don't mind if you disagree with me, but I don't want to argue you about who wants to compensate who for what. I don't think I can convince you to see my side of it. I just want you to understand why you are probably getting flamed. You're drawing conclusions and making harsh assumptions about people, a lot of them with tons of albums sitting in their closets. Maybe you could get your view out there to be a little more understood if you'd be more tactful in your posts.
"And non-fair-use, which I have been arguing against, making use of others works you haven't paid for without their permission, is generally screwing the artists, not screwing the RIAA. "
Not that I want to get dragged into this type of debate, but what people want here are services like Apple's iTunes. Fast, high quality music downloads with a decent codec. (iTunes would be a dream if it supported Mp3). The huge success of that service really should tell you something. It should
"The primary goal of an artist should be to create art works by all means necessary...To worry about if an artist gets paid or not is pure reactionary bullshit. If the individual had no intention of paying in the first place, who cares? The art exists and is accessible, an artist is happy. "
Perhaps, but that's only one flavor of artist. Some use their creative skills in order to make a living. Art is not simply a manifestation of self-expression, it is also used for entertainment, something people pay quite a bit for. There is demand for entertainment out there, and people like musicians fill it because it is something they are talented at.
You do have a point, but it's only limited to a segment of the artist population. If they set out to entertain, and they accomplish that, there's nothing wrong with them expecting to be paid in return.
It's a pity that the RIAA doesn't compensate the artists like they should.
"...as long as it's not the listeners who have to pay them."
Who says it's about price? The same people who want P2P also throw lots of money at neat little devices such as iPods. Money's not the focus here.
"Call me embittered, cynical, and pissed off, but when I've posted something similar, I've tended to get flamed as a "stooge of the RIAA"."
I can only speculate, but I think you get 'stooge of the RIAA' label because they make harsh assumptions about people's behaviour. "I'm a pirate simply because I own a CD Burner? I downloaded a song because I've never heard this band before and I'm a thief? WTF?" If you're telling people (like you did in your post here) that they're unwilling to pay for anything then I wouldn't be a bit surprised that you've been labeled that way. The money is there ready to be spent on artists who supply what people want. The demand is there, now where's the supply?
Ditch your view that people only download Mp3s to avoid spending money and maybe, just maybe, you won't be labeled that. If anything, people are avoiding being overcharged. There is no middle ground here. You can get it free off P2P, or you can pay too much money for an album containing stuff you don't want. Until the RIAA brings on the supply, the people are going to fulfill their own demand. That's why they're sensitive about it. Fight back againt a monpolistic entity and get labeled a thief. Fun.
"Switching back is the hard part."
That was before Vice City came out.
He's not exactly riveting.
Offtopic? Pardon me for making a joke. Afterall, Adventure is the first game to have an easter egg. We wouldn't want to go discussing that now, would we?
I found an easter egg in Quake 3. What you do is you go into a multiplayer game of Capture the Flag. Then, get really really good at using the railgun. Once you reach a certain level of accuracy, the game will call you a 'faggot camper'!
I found a pic of the 10 in 1 system, here.
Yeah I think we're on the same page here. :)
Nah, his theories on EM fields aren't born from an educated mind.
" How many people are going to accept a system that lets their insurance company track everywhere they drive?"
Oregon's been talking about installing GPS in all cars to track their movements within the state and tax proportionally. Lots of people saying "WTF?!"
"Maybe SCO can use GPS to locate *nix code in Linux. So far they sure don't seem to have found much of it otherwise. "
Give the inspectors more time!!
"The turn-by-turn routing has been a huge help. "
My step mom has that feature built in too. My dad says the command recognition's a little off, tho.
"The problem then, of course, is that you would then have to either buy the component connection kit and have an HDTV or connect an outboard transcoder to convert to VGA, OR buy one of the Xbox VGA adapters that are being made...any way you slice it, of course, you're spending a lot more for less functionality. "
I'm having a seriously difficult time imagining somebody with an HDTV setup today who wants a bargain basement pc.
usually. Sometimes twice in a day if AnonV noticed somethin.
"ill it play games with the graphical qualities of Halo, JSRF, or Brute Force?"
Does the quality of Halo, JSRF, or Brute Force suddenly increase when you mod the thing?
While we're on the topic of graphical quality, I don't remember 733 machines with 64 meg of RAM having the video quality of Halo. Face facts, the XBOX isn't going to be much of a gaming machine after being hacked. And without games to play on it, the graphic system of it isn't all that useful.
Sorry, not sold. This quest to hack the XBOX is going to land people in jail as well as validate to the industry that these type of mechanisms have to be in place.
"I think it's silly to expect a $300 PC that is being marketed as a server to be designed for a top-end video subsystem."
I think it's silly to expect that anybody's going to hack the XBOX and do anything interesting with that graphics sub-system. You expectin a flurry of indie games or something?
"Sure, you get for $300 a full powered server machine...but it has no AGP slot. So much for gaming..."
This problem is not solved on the XBOX. You want games on the XBOX? Buy XBOX games, no need to mod it.
Also, you only get NTSC out on it. No VGA out. So forget doing anything command-line based.
Honestly, I don't understand the appeal of the XBOX for hacking. I have a feeling that if you removed the "it screws MS!" factor of it, then the only people left who'd want to hack it would be people who want to run MAME. I don't have a problem with that, but technically a lot of the people there would be doing so illegally.