Copying software without paying for it isn't stealing? Split the hairs and call it what you want--but it's still taking something for yourself that you don't own when the owner asks for a price. Piracy even worse because you're copying someone else's material and selling it to others for your own profit. Civil or criminal--it's still is not fair to whomever is footing the bill for the cost of production.
However, I do agree that the asking price for the software, recordings, or movies should be fair. I think most people justify copyright infringement and/or piracy one way or another because the simply do not want to pay the asking price.
Do the math: AP provides stories to publishers. Publishers are owned by large companies who publish stuff--like books, music, movies.
Did you REALLY expect them to bite the hand that feeds them? Why would they publish a story that favors piracy helping people when they could push the agenda their way to protect the interests of the corporations pirates are hurting?
Look--piracy is stealing no matter what kind of spit shine you put on it. Are the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA going a bit over the top about it? Yes. Does that somehow make piracy right? No. It's still stealing. Just because the AP isn't picking up on what some techblog mentioned on slashdot doesn't make them morons. I think we glorify our own technical punditry beyond the tempest in the teapot that it really is.
It's never about what is the "best"--it's always about what's more popular. That's where the money is. Windows and VHS are testments to that. It's all about margins and paying off the share holders.
The REAL story is going to be which of the publishers (movie studios and record labels included) survive the learning curve of the new business model--the computer as an entertainment hub. The whole MP3 thing blew up not because of piracy but because it was EASY and CHEAP. That's what consumers want--easy and a fair price. The content providers are catching on--hence all the TV-a-la-carte on the iTMS.
Is it the best? Probably not. But is it lucrative? Hell, yeah. You don't have to be Warren Buffet to figure that out.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Apple pay another company to make them for Apple? Wouldn't this impugn that company's practices rather than Apple? Sure, Apple doesn't HAVE to take the lowest bid but it does help with the margins.
Of course, all of this discourse is based on a report of a report that most of us haven't read yet.
Well, the "wealthy" and "private" part were exactly my point.
I'm not saying it's fair--it's just a better working environment when your department can afford good equipment.
Stay away from state-run universities if you want to avoid the same sort of red-tape and bullshit you find working for Uncle Sam.
I'm working for a very wealthy private univesity and it's much better than the state one where I worked before. It's easier to get fired at a private place so do you work and obey the rules. If you like total job security despite the BS factor, you might enjoy working for the state--here in Texas, it took an act of God to get fired because the managers (at least where I worked) never kept enough of the right paper work to do the necessary documentation to terminate an employee.
However, universities have a bad habit of higher their own graduates and favoring them in promotions--they've never been anywhere else so changes come slow if not 10 years behind everyone else. The management types are usually not as sharp as the managers in the corporate world--mostly because they wouldn't survive out there so they're also playing the job security card.
There's also little upward mobility. But, in the right position, you're an 8-5, weekends off, extra week off between Xmas and New Years Day kind of cush job.
Oh, at the pay scale is usually lower than the corporate market bears--but you won't get laid off.
There's lots of trade-offs but you have to decide what you want.
Good luck--having "USMC" on my resume qualified me for prison guard, police work, or mall security. Hope USAF is more helpful to you.
A dude I work with (who shall remain nameless) who told me yesterd that he spends 72 hours per week in World of Warcraft.
72 hours. I shit you not.
That's hard core. But, is it addiction or a hobby? Does he like reality? Apparently, he'd rather spend his free time trinkin' and spellin' than with his wife or anyone or doing anything else. I thought "Ever-crack" was bad. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned by TNG Episode 106: The Game.
I finished Call of Duty 2 in less than a week--my wife says that I have a Nazi killing habit.
I'm trying to imagine the conversation on the "toll free number"
Voice on Phone: Thank you for calling the Wetback Fink Hotline! For English, press 1. Para Español, press 2--just kidding. Please hold and someone will...(click)
Operator: Wetback Fink Hotline, how can I help you? Xenophobe: Uh, yeah...I'm callin' to report some Messicans crossing the border Operator: Which webcam sir? Xenophobe: Nuevo Loredo (pronounced in Texan: Nu-wayvuh Lor-ay-duh). Operator: Can you describe the perpetrators? Xenophobe: Uh, yeah...they're about 5 foot 3 with dark skin and a mustaches wearing a wife beaters and jeans. Operator: OK, sir. We'll get right on that. Xenophobe: Great. Glad I could help save some American jobs Operator: Uh, yeah--like lazy Americans will every wash dishes, dig ditches, or mow grass. Xenophobe: What? Where the hell are you? Operator: New Delhi, bunghole. (click)
The author of TFA seems to have let his emotional response to the FSF's fanaticism color his logic. But I think everyone is missing something important.
I'm not a huge fan of the FSF but I'm even less of a fan of DRM--mostly for the restrictions on my choices for fair use. RMS and company are a bit fanatic for my taste but they make a good point. In fact, I'm more sympathetic to their cause after reading their site, but I digress...
I think the whole DRM movement is still in its infancy. The MPAA and RIAA are convinced that computers (or their users) are responsible for undermining their business model. They still think inside the old schema where the very nature of their business was completely proprietary: Vinyl records could only be played on a record player. VHS, Beta, Cassette, and 8-Track tapes could only be played in their respective players. They weren't too concerned about piracy because it was usually poor quality and too expensive to reproduce in large quantities. Rights management was built into the very type of media on which they sold their products.
The computer comes along and people figure out ways to digitize analog and manage their own digital data (ripping CDs and DVDs). Not a bad deal at first because bandwidth is limited to 28kbps and it's kind of tedius.
Then, BAM! One day, the MP3 craze hits and Napster is all the rage. People are trading MP3 files left and right. The RIAA (and Lars Ulrich) go ape sh*t because they no longer control the media on which their art is distributed. Emerging disruptive technologies: sink or swim.
The entertainment industry is still scrambling to find a way to regain control of their products. They have not really embraced the computer as a converged media player/manager. They still think in terms of appliances such as DVD and CD players.
DRM is the result of old school thinkers trying to shoe-horn their old paradigms into emerging technologies. There isn't really a plot to take away your rights or control your computer--they are trying to put Humpty back together. Since the first wax cylinders went on sale, the recording industry had a very simple business model for distribution. This is how they think.
The computer is not an appliance (yet) and they haven't quite figured out how to think on the same plane as RMS and his liberated data. So, the RIAA/MPAA come up with all kinds of kooky ways to make it fit--the infamous Sony rootkit is a good example of their misunderstanding of the "new" digital market.
Equally clueless are the hordes of people who think music should be free (free as in stolen beer). These types of people don't think they should have to pay for anything so they "liberate" music from CDs (and now video from DVDs, too) and distribute them indiscriminately around the net. Swapping one song for another, to them, is a barter not a copyright violation.
Unfortunately, these digital miscreants who want "free" as in five-finger discount are often associated with the likes of RMS and his merry men who want "Free" as in liberty.
What RMS and the FSF want is the ability to use purchased digital enterainment anyway one wants on his computer. Ironically, what the RIAA and MPAA want is remarkably the same: they want you to purchase digital entertainment and use it. The difference is that the media companies don't trust you. They think that all the people stealing their products should be paying. That might be true, but they are probably people who wouldn't pay anyway so there really isn't any lost revenue.
Unfortunately, they think DRM is the answer but it only irritates computer users who have to jump through hoops to use something they believe they paid for.
However, as the author points out, it doesn't seem to bother consumers who use "appliances" such as the iPod.
Look, I'm not saying RMS is a turd or stupid or anything like that--he's a brilliant guy who has given much the to computing world. No one can refute that.
What I *AM* saying is that he tends to be acrid and very single-minded about "free." Not everyone plays by those rules and he keeps banging that "free" drum loudly and obnoxiously--which I think discredits him as a nut more than it helps his cause. (I guess somebody's gotta do it, tho).
His article was stating the obvious: Sun is a company trying to market something with a gimmick. Is it misleading? Yeah. So what? So are the beer companies that promised I'd get laid and look cool drinking their products.
I think that there is a need for the "for profit" sector and its closed-source non-free software has its place in the food chain.
RMS is like the over-zealous animal activist who wants to go to the zoos and labs to open all the cages instead of pursuing a more practical and realistic strategy for the cause.
I'm not entirely sure if his own radical and tenacious persuits of "free" could survive one minute outside the bubble of his Utopian ideals. Let's face it, business is business. It would be nice if it were a little less cut-throat and everyone could play nice and share but that's not reality.
I'm not sure what kind of stir RMS is trying to cause by this sabre rattling, but it seems just as equally self-serving as his complaints against Sun.
Slashdot Mirror
Copying software without paying for it isn't stealing? Split the hairs and call it what you want--but it's still taking something for yourself that you don't own when the owner asks for a price. Piracy even worse because you're copying someone else's material and selling it to others for your own profit. Civil or criminal--it's still is not fair to whomever is footing the bill for the cost of production.
However, I do agree that the asking price for the software, recordings, or movies should be fair. I think most people justify copyright infringement and/or piracy one way or another because the simply do not want to pay the asking price.
Missed the point? You've got to be kidding me.
Do the math: AP provides stories to publishers. Publishers are owned by large companies who publish stuff--like books, music, movies.
Did you REALLY expect them to bite the hand that feeds them?
Why would they publish a story that favors piracy helping people when they could push the agenda their way to protect the interests of the corporations pirates are hurting?
Look--piracy is stealing no matter what kind of spit shine you put on it. Are the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA going a bit over the top about it? Yes. Does that somehow make piracy right? No. It's still stealing. Just because the AP isn't picking up on what some techblog mentioned on slashdot doesn't make them morons. I think we glorify our own technical punditry beyond the tempest in the teapot that it really is.
It's never about what is the "best"--it's always about what's more popular. That's where the money is. Windows and VHS are testments to that. It's all about margins and paying off the share holders.
The REAL story is going to be which of the publishers (movie studios and record labels included) survive the learning curve of the new business model--the computer as an entertainment hub. The whole MP3 thing blew up not because of piracy but because it was EASY and CHEAP. That's what consumers want--easy and a fair price. The content providers are catching on--hence all the TV-a-la-carte on the iTMS.
Is it the best? Probably not. But is it lucrative? Hell, yeah. You don't have to be Warren Buffet to figure that out.
It's all about the Benjamins, baby.
Holy Crap! How can you listen to NPR *ALL* freakin' day?
Only a fraction of their programming is interesting--well, at least to me.
I'm going through the whole thread just to count Blue Screen of Death jokes...
That's dude's pretty funny. I wonder, before turning on that video cam, if he eats espresso beans or if he free-bases them ?
Reminds of the fast talking guy who used to pitch Micro Machines.
Wow. How audacious is it to hold your first "shadow company" meeting in the board room of the company you're ripping off.
Talk about hubris!
Slashdot gets mentioned, too...
Looks like Slashdot speaks for itself:
"Server too busy"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Apple pay another company to make them for Apple? Wouldn't this impugn that company's practices rather than Apple? Sure, Apple doesn't HAVE to take the lowest bid but it does help with the margins.
Of course, all of this discourse is based on a report of a report that most of us haven't read yet.
Very cool. Makes me wonder if they'll discover Bebo from Clash of the Titans...
(ducks)
Well, the "wealthy" and "private" part were exactly my point. I'm not saying it's fair--it's just a better working environment when your department can afford good equipment.
Stay away from state-run universities if you want to avoid the same sort of red-tape and bullshit you find working for Uncle Sam.
I'm working for a very wealthy private univesity and it's much better than the state one where I worked before. It's easier to get fired at a private place so do you work and obey the rules. If you like total job security despite the BS factor, you might enjoy working for the state--here in Texas, it took an act of God to get fired because the managers (at least where I worked) never kept enough of the right paper work to do the necessary documentation to terminate an employee.
However, universities have a bad habit of higher their own graduates and favoring them in promotions--they've never been anywhere else so changes come slow if not 10 years behind everyone else. The management types are usually not as sharp as the managers in the corporate world--mostly because they wouldn't survive out there so they're also playing the job security card.
There's also little upward mobility. But, in the right position, you're an 8-5, weekends off, extra week off between Xmas and New Years Day kind of cush job.
Oh, at the pay scale is usually lower than the corporate market bears--but you won't get laid off.
There's lots of trade-offs but you have to decide what you want.
Good luck--having "USMC" on my resume qualified me for prison guard, police work, or mall security. Hope USAF is more helpful to you.
A dude I work with (who shall remain nameless) who told me yesterd that he spends 72 hours per week in World of Warcraft.
72 hours . I shit you not.
That's hard core. But, is it addiction or a hobby? Does he like reality? Apparently, he'd rather spend his free time trinkin' and spellin' than with his wife or anyone or doing anything else. I thought "Ever-crack" was bad. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned by TNG Episode 106: The Game.
I finished Call of Duty 2 in less than a week--my wife says that I have a Nazi killing habit.
They were probably drunk when they took the poll...
Uh...yeah...no bias there. Not a bit. Nope.
Looks like she's been getting quite a few free lunches from Microsoft.
Dude...If I only had my mod points today--I'd give you funny.
How ironical.
When I was in the USMC, I learned not to tell the DIs I was from Texas.
You'd be amazed how close to reality "Full Metal Jacket" is. (Lou Gossett--not so much).
Somebody made an A in Texas history (aka 7th grade in the Lone Star State).
I'm trying to imagine the conversation on the "toll free number"
Voice on Phone: Thank you for calling the Wetback Fink Hotline! For English, press 1. Para Español, press 2--just kidding. Please hold and someone will...(click)
Operator: Wetback Fink Hotline, how can I help you?
Xenophobe: Uh, yeah...I'm callin' to report some Messicans crossing the border
Operator: Which webcam sir?
Xenophobe: Nuevo Loredo (pronounced in Texan: Nu-wayvuh Lor-ay-duh).
Operator: Can you describe the perpetrators?
Xenophobe: Uh, yeah...they're about 5 foot 3 with dark skin and a mustaches wearing a wife beaters and jeans.
Operator: OK, sir. We'll get right on that.
Xenophobe: Great. Glad I could help save some American jobs
Operator: Uh, yeah--like lazy Americans will every wash dishes, dig ditches, or mow grass.
Xenophobe: What? Where the hell are you?
Operator: New Delhi, bunghole.
(click)
I recommend you keep away from these parts with that liberal talk! Theys hangin' Democrats down here. :-)
Boy, that kinda talk will get your ass kicked down here in Houston.
The author of TFA seems to have let his emotional response to the FSF's fanaticism color his logic. But I think everyone is missing something important.
I'm not a huge fan of the FSF but I'm even less of a fan of DRM--mostly for the restrictions on my choices for fair use.
RMS and company are a bit fanatic for my taste but they make a good point. In fact, I'm more sympathetic to their cause after reading their site, but I digress...
I think the whole DRM movement is still in its infancy. The MPAA and RIAA are convinced that computers (or their users) are responsible for undermining their business model. They still think inside the old schema where the very nature of their business was completely proprietary: Vinyl records could only be played on a record player. VHS, Beta, Cassette, and 8-Track tapes could only be played in their respective players. They weren't too concerned about piracy because it was usually poor quality and too expensive to reproduce in large quantities. Rights management was built into the very type of media on which they sold their products.
The computer comes along and people figure out ways to digitize analog and manage their own digital data (ripping CDs and DVDs). Not a bad deal at first because bandwidth is limited to 28kbps and it's kind of tedius.
Then, BAM! One day, the MP3 craze hits and Napster is all the rage. People are trading MP3 files left and right. The RIAA (and Lars Ulrich) go ape sh*t because they no longer control the media on which their art is distributed. Emerging disruptive technologies: sink or swim.
The entertainment industry is still scrambling to find a way to regain control of their products. They have not really embraced the computer as a converged media player/manager. They still think in terms of appliances such as DVD and CD players.
DRM is the result of old school thinkers trying to shoe-horn their old paradigms into emerging technologies. There isn't really a plot to take away your rights or control your computer--they are trying to put Humpty back together. Since the first wax cylinders went on sale, the recording industry had a very simple business model for distribution. This is how they think.
The computer is not an appliance (yet) and they haven't quite figured out how to think on the same plane as RMS and his liberated data. So, the RIAA/MPAA come up with all kinds of kooky ways to make it fit--the infamous Sony rootkit is a good example of their misunderstanding of the "new" digital market.
Equally clueless are the hordes of people who think music should be free (free as in stolen beer). These types of people don't think they should have to pay for anything so they "liberate" music from CDs (and now video from DVDs, too) and distribute them indiscriminately around the net. Swapping one song for another, to them, is a barter not a copyright violation.
Unfortunately, these digital miscreants who want "free" as in five-finger discount are often associated with the likes of RMS and his merry men who want "Free" as in liberty.
What RMS and the FSF want is the ability to use purchased digital enterainment anyway one wants on his computer. Ironically, what the RIAA and MPAA want is remarkably the same: they want you to purchase digital entertainment and use it. The difference is that the media companies don't trust you. They think that all the people stealing their products should be paying. That might be true, but they are probably people who wouldn't pay anyway so there really isn't any lost revenue.
Unfortunately, they think DRM is the answer but it only irritates computer users who have to jump through hoops to use something they believe they paid for.
However, as the author points out, it doesn't seem to bother consumers who use "appliances" such as the iPod.
Look, I'm not saying RMS is a turd or stupid or anything like that--he's a brilliant guy who has given much the to computing world. No one can refute that.
What I *AM* saying is that he tends to be acrid and very single-minded about "free." Not everyone plays by those rules and he keeps banging that "free" drum loudly and obnoxiously--which I think discredits him as a nut more than it helps his cause. (I guess somebody's gotta do it, tho).
His article was stating the obvious: Sun is a company trying to market something with a gimmick. Is it misleading? Yeah. So what? So are the beer companies that promised I'd get laid and look cool drinking their products.
I think that there is a need for the "for profit" sector and its closed-source non-free software has its place in the food chain.
RMS is like the over-zealous animal activist who wants to go to the zoos and labs to open all the cages instead of pursuing a more practical and realistic strategy for the cause.
He can have his opinion--and I can, too.
FWIW.
RMS is the Hugo Chavez/Fidel Castro of software.
I'm not entirely sure if his own radical and tenacious persuits of "free" could survive one minute outside the bubble of his Utopian ideals. Let's face it, business is business. It would be nice if it were a little less cut-throat and everyone could play nice and share but that's not reality.
I'm not sure what kind of stir RMS is trying to cause by this sabre rattling, but it seems just as equally self-serving as his complaints against Sun.
Thank God for all the comments about "not funny" --I thought my sense of humor was broken.
It had so much potential--it was...actually, it didn't have any potential. I should've known better when I saw the "Kubrick" theme.