You are right, resistance is futile. The issue is that we, the people, are in reaction mode, only noticing the vermins when they actually start nibbling our toes. I think the only productive action would be to outlaw the existence of these organizations and restructure copyright law.
Anything less than that is not going to make a significant difference. Yes, maybe we can delay the trend for a few years, while the corporations milking the general population are getting richer, stronger and fiercer and the people running them are dead set on extracting what they believe is theirs from the rest of us.
Imaginary property is unlimited, therefore the potential profit is unlimited. We can already see this in the astronomical amounts in copyright infringement cases.
This is what is so *convenient* of copyright, and specifically of criminalizing it. Because it makes 99.999% of the populace guilty, and then it's purely up to the state to use it on a person when they feel like it.
Or, license the format for a year, start selling devices they control, then after reaching critical mass, update the format on their devices and lock everyone else out.
There's no lows corporations will not sink to, as long as they turn profit in a way that's marginally legal or cheaper (incl. legal fees) than the alternative.
I know this may sound weird but after spending 8 months learning how to teach nonviolent parenting I can suggest that it has to do with upbringing. Most human children are raised as slaves, broken into obedience which is believed to be a virtue. Violence, distrust, control, punishment and rewards become core relationship tools for generation after generation.
Check out Parenting for a Peaceful World for an insight of where humanity is coming from. Hint: infanticide, child rape, slavery & torture have been the norm for centuries.
You may also enjoy reading this essay on the core purpose and arguments of conservatism:
What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
Philip E. Agre August 2004
Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:
Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
Because now Veri$on will be able to disconnect anybody for any reason under the pretext of breaking a rule. Quite convenient. Same with government and the thousands of laws.
Not every law is applied to everybody, but when anybody becomes inconvenient, there are enough laws to take them out of the picture.
The more numerous the laws, the more corrupted the state.
This is a censorship law pushed through legislation smartly framed as "Blocking Child Pornography." So, when the question comes up, are you against or for child pornography? Of course, the correct question is, are you for or against blanket policy allowing government censorship of the only free/cheap mass information medium in the world under the pretense of protecting children?
And, in the realm of censorship, Germany seems to have the most sense (amongst Western nations incl. U.S. and England) , probably having already gone through the fiery blindness of mad political rampage in the past.
For more on framing and how it defines the political scene (esp. in the U.S.) check this interview with George Lakoff, professor in linguistics. Here's a list of his lectures on YouTube.
See, this is the difference between human thinking and corporative thinking. A corporation will remain within the bounds of the law, UNLESS it's more profitable to overstep them and paying the fines. Greed is the only moral codex of corporations.
I think this is a discussion of wrong and right from the perspective of the market. The market, and corporations, speak only one language, the language of greed and profit. Profit = good, loss = bad. Anything that brings profit is good. Look at corporate behavior and you'll see that employees' lives, environmental costs, customer satisfaction (or survival -- tobacco or car industry) are only important when measured in profit.
The choices @reporter describes are choices in a system that does not operate within human morality, it operates in market morality. It feels immoral for individuals to operate that way, but it is imperative for corporations (mandated to make a profit in order to exist) to do so.
So, rather "they all deserve to pay," I think @reporter outlines a reality of choices within the realm of market "only profit is good and nothing else matters much."
Applying human moral rules to non-human entities driven by very different rules of success with zero loyalty to humanity is a recipe for disaster.
There is also the possibility to educate your manager/boss about the serious risk of using unlicensed software and the potential financial consequences. This would require you to risk getting really honest with him.
As you educate, you may offer FOSS alternatives and have him make the choice. You can also educate him on how difficult it is for you to partake in an ambiguously legal activity by fulfilling his requests.
This has the potential to create a more honest environment, more connected relationship with the person you work for, and more integrity for the company.
No need to be a hardball and issue ultimatums. Rather, offer solutions and convey where you're at while retaining clear boundaries. And, next time you install something, you may ask for a legally obtained serial, and possibly educate him about the one-license per employee concept.
I am still amazed at the business model of companies that have a product that I want, refuse to take my money in exchange for it, and then complain that pirates are destroying their profits.
And, at that, a product that costs nothing to duplicate for you to consume. It's not like they have to spend extra money in order to give you the product. No, all they have to do in order to make more money, is to make the product cheaper and more available.
I sense deep insecurity in the value of their own product. Hence the fear & distrust.
This is getting ridiculous. The MPAA is waging a war on the People.
The fundamental error in our (the People's) approach to the situation, is that we are on the offense. We only acknowledge the activity of this entity when it pokes us in one way or another. This is a very weak strategy.
The only way to cause a significant change in the current balance is to address the existence of the MPAA and all laws it bought as unconstitutional. Until we put this entity out of existence we are only fighting the symptoms. It is the Hydra with a thousand heads, ten new ones growing up when you cut off one.
Yes, artists should have representation. There is space for a (non-profit) organization representing artists' rights with integrity and core understanding of the changes in distribution models caused by technology advances. MPAA, a cancerous, mutated, evil abomination trying its best to control and criminalize the public for profit does not fulfill that function.
I am not a lawyer but I would gladly give my $10-$100 to a team ready to to take on wiping off this toxic monster. It is something that should not exist,l and we know it. Still, we focus on its deeds and not its existence. Let's step up our efficiency and go for the kill. Artists are ready to be embraced by the public and be supported for their gift.
And, if it takes some civil disobedience, if it takes (loudly!) never buying anything from represented artists, so be it. It is as important to give artists alternatives.
I've been wondering for a while, is there a way to donate to the artists directly? If I bought The Dark Side of the moon for $0.50 from a yard sale and I want to show my gratitude to the artists, how do I do it? Not interested in giving $10 to suits in order to give $1 or $4 (itunes) to the artists. I want my $10 to go to them. How do I do it?
Excellent point. Let's distinguish between movies made by artists and movies made by for-profit corporations, with artistic decisions overseen by committees of suits and driven by focus groups. You know how much you enjoy those.
When making money from movies becomes difficult if not impossible, they'll just stop making them. That's what will stop it.
When making money from movies becomes difficult if not impossible, then only people who make movies out of the love for it will make movies.
There's this website called www.youtube.com you may want to check. And, vimeo.com. Content is still pretty crappy but there are absolute gems crafted with loving attention and released to the public with the intention to share.
Money may be the only driving force in *your* world, but money art makes not, my friend.
Right on. And, changing copyright law to continually rob the public from what rightfully belongs to us.
If the purpose of copyright law is to support creativity, how is George Gershwin supported now that he's dead? Is it easier for him to write more excellent music because some corporate drone can now snort coke from a hooker's body?
Corporations turn town into a toxic sludge dump. Taxpayers pay for people to relocate.
=> Free Money solves the pollution problem!
By converting the planet's natural resources into limitless virtual symbols for value, we are approaching a point when we'll have to eat, breathe, and drink money.
During the class, insert an identifier in the document, like [a], and write the equation on 3x5 (or smaller) blank index card, using corresponding identifier. At the end of the class, take a snapshot of each of the cards and insert them into the document. If you write with a sharpie, it will be crystal clear.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right, resistance is futile. The issue is that we, the people, are in reaction mode, only noticing the vermins when they actually start nibbling our toes. I think the only productive action would be to outlaw the existence of these organizations and restructure copyright law.
Anything less than that is not going to make a significant difference. Yes, maybe we can delay the trend for a few years, while the corporations milking the general population are getting richer, stronger and fiercer and the people running them are dead set on extracting what they believe is theirs from the rest of us.
Imaginary property is unlimited, therefore the potential profit is unlimited. We can already see this in the astronomical amounts in copyright infringement cases.
This is what is so *convenient* of copyright, and specifically of criminalizing it. Because it makes 99.999% of the populace guilty, and then it's purely up to the state to use it on a person when they feel like it.
Fixed that for you.
Or, AT&T could offer a paid service to Nook owners and make some extra money?
The natural tendency of Money + Usury = monetizing everything.
Check this essay on the nature of current money implementation, how it robs humanity of true value and alternatives:
http://www.realitysandwich.com/money_a_new_beginning
Or, license the format for a year, start selling devices they control, then after reaching critical mass, update the format on their devices and lock everyone else out.
There's no lows corporations will not sink to, as long as they turn profit in a way that's marginally legal or cheaper (incl. legal fees) than the alternative.
This is corporate morality by definition.
I know this may sound weird but after spending 8 months learning how to teach nonviolent parenting I can suggest that it has to do with upbringing. Most human children are raised as slaves, broken into obedience which is believed to be a virtue. Violence, distrust, control, punishment and rewards become core relationship tools for generation after generation.
Check out Parenting for a Peaceful World for an insight of where humanity is coming from. Hint: infanticide, child rape, slavery & torture have been the norm for centuries.
Excellent post, thank you.
You may also enjoy reading this essay on the core purpose and arguments of conservatism:
What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
Philip E. Agre
August 2004
Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:
Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
Link: What is conservatism
Because now Veri$on will be able to disconnect anybody for any reason under the pretext of breaking a rule. Quite convenient. Same with government and the thousands of laws.
Not every law is applied to everybody, but when anybody becomes inconvenient, there are enough laws to take them out of the picture.
The more numerous the laws, the more corrupted the state.
This is a censorship law pushed through legislation smartly framed as "Blocking Child Pornography." So, when the question comes up, are you against or for child pornography? Of course, the correct question is, are you for or against blanket policy allowing government censorship of the only free/cheap mass information medium in the world under the pretense of protecting children?
And, in the realm of censorship, Germany seems to have the most sense (amongst Western nations incl. U.S. and England) , probably having already gone through the fiery blindness of mad political rampage in the past.
For more on framing and how it defines the political scene (esp. in the U.S.) check this interview with George Lakoff, professor in linguistics. Here's a list of his lectures on YouTube.
That or throw a mop in their direction. I guarantee they'll scatter to the four corners.
As would anybody.
Or, are you implying that teenage girls are somehow specifically afraid of mops, like in vampires and garlic?
Reminiscing of the good old times, when men were, er, macho jerks and women -- submissive housewives?
Well, news for you: it's 2009, women can vote, have their own jobs and money, and know how to throw a mop back at you.
Cheers,
Another dude.
The title says it all, feels like /. editors are boldly crossing into Troll-landia.
See, this is the difference between human thinking and corporative thinking. A corporation will remain within the bounds of the law, UNLESS it's more profitable to overstep them and paying the fines. Greed is the only moral codex of corporations.
I think this is a discussion of wrong and right from the perspective of the market. The market, and corporations, speak only one language, the language of greed and profit. Profit = good, loss = bad. Anything that brings profit is good. Look at corporate behavior and you'll see that employees' lives, environmental costs, customer satisfaction (or survival -- tobacco or car industry) are only important when measured in profit.
The choices @reporter describes are choices in a system that does not operate within human morality, it operates in market morality. It feels immoral for individuals to operate that way, but it is imperative for corporations (mandated to make a profit in order to exist) to do so.
So, rather "they all deserve to pay," I think @reporter outlines a reality of choices within the realm of market "only profit is good and nothing else matters much."
Applying human moral rules to non-human entities driven by very different rules of success with zero loyalty to humanity is a recipe for disaster.
There is also the possibility to educate your manager/boss about the serious risk of using unlicensed software and the potential financial consequences. This would require you to risk getting really honest with him.
As you educate, you may offer FOSS alternatives and have him make the choice. You can also educate him on how difficult it is for you to partake in an ambiguously legal activity by fulfilling his requests.
This has the potential to create a more honest environment, more connected relationship with the person you work for, and more integrity for the company.
No need to be a hardball and issue ultimatums. Rather, offer solutions and convey where you're at while retaining clear boundaries. And, next time you install something, you may ask for a legally obtained serial, and possibly educate him about the one-license per employee concept.
Good luck.
I am still amazed at the business model of companies that have a product that I want, refuse to take my money in exchange for it, and then complain that pirates are destroying their profits.
And, at that, a product that costs nothing to duplicate for you to consume. It's not like they have to spend extra money in order to give you the product. No, all they have to do in order to make more money, is to make the product cheaper and more available.
I sense deep insecurity in the value of their own product. Hence the fear & distrust.
This is getting ridiculous. The MPAA is waging a war on the People.
The fundamental error in our (the People's) approach to the situation, is that we are on the offense. We only acknowledge the activity of this entity when it pokes us in one way or another. This is a very weak strategy.
The only way to cause a significant change in the current balance is to address the existence of the MPAA and all laws it bought as unconstitutional. Until we put this entity out of existence we are only fighting the symptoms. It is the Hydra with a thousand heads, ten new ones growing up when you cut off one.
Yes, artists should have representation. There is space for a (non-profit) organization representing artists' rights with integrity and core understanding of the changes in distribution models caused by technology advances. MPAA, a cancerous, mutated, evil abomination trying its best to control and criminalize the public for profit does not fulfill that function.
I am not a lawyer but I would gladly give my $10-$100 to a team ready to to take on wiping off this toxic monster. It is something that should not exist,l and we know it. Still, we focus on its deeds and not its existence. Let's step up our efficiency and go for the kill. Artists are ready to be embraced by the public and be supported for their gift.
And, if it takes some civil disobedience, if it takes (loudly!) never buying anything from represented artists, so be it. It is as important to give artists alternatives.
I've been wondering for a while, is there a way to donate to the artists directly? If I bought The Dark Side of the moon for $0.50 from a yard sale and I want to show my gratitude to the artists, how do I do it? Not interested in giving $10 to suits in order to give $1 or $4 (itunes) to the artists. I want my $10 to go to them. How do I do it?
Maybe we can start with that.
... it has a catchy title playing on the "Diet and Exercise" popular belief.
Excellent point. Let's distinguish between movies made by artists and movies made by for-profit corporations, with artistic decisions overseen by committees of suits and driven by focus groups. You know how much you enjoy those.
When making money from movies becomes difficult if not impossible, they'll just stop making them. That's what will stop it.
When making money from movies becomes difficult if not impossible, then only people who make movies out of the love for it will make movies.
There's this website called www.youtube.com you may want to check. And, vimeo.com. Content is still pretty crappy but there are absolute gems crafted with loving attention and released to the public with the intention to share.
Money may be the only driving force in *your* world, but money art makes not, my friend.
Right on. And, changing copyright law to continually rob the public from what rightfully belongs to us.
If the purpose of copyright law is to support creativity, how is George Gershwin supported now that he's dead? Is it easier for him to write more excellent music because some corporate drone can now snort coke from a hooker's body?
The industry execs don't treat their customers like scum.
They treat them as mindless, defenseless cattle, good only for milking and slaughter.
(Non-monetary) slavery was also perfectly legal at some point. As was raping, selling or killing your own children.
Corporations turn town into a toxic sludge dump.
Taxpayers pay for people to relocate.
=> Free Money solves the pollution problem!
By converting the planet's natural resources into limitless virtual symbols for value, we are approaching a point when we'll have to eat, breathe, and drink money.
I think it may be time to reform money: http://www.realitysandwich.com/money_a_new_beginning
That's what I'd do:
During the class, insert an identifier in the document, like [a], and write the equation on 3x5 (or smaller) blank index card, using corresponding identifier. At the end of the class, take a snapshot of each of the cards and insert them into the document. If you write with a sharpie, it will be crystal clear.
Just a reminder.