These actions are never about the dissidents they find. It's always about making an example of someone. It doesn't even have to be a real person, as long as the coverage is public enough and people believe it.
True, but it's much more efficient to inspect each cow, pig, or chicken than it is the thousands upon thousands of insects it would take to equal one cow's worth of food.
You constantly hear about the problems with insects and arachnids. Ticks carry lyme disease. Mosquitoes carry West Nile. Bees sting but honey is delicious. Wasps. Hornets. Plagues of locusts. Poisonous spiders and scorpion venom. Fictitious depictions of flesh-eating scarabs (actually a type of dung beetle).
It is written much better than the twilight series, but she still manages to milk about 250 extra pages out of what should be a much shorter story. The film, on the other hand, seemed to be one of those situations where the screenwriter didn't read the book.
I'm on Virgin Mobile, which is essentially Sprint's prepaid service with no roam whatsoever. For the limited use I actually give my phone, it's mostly a safety net in case I have an emergency. At home, I use Google Voice via GrooveIP, and at work I just use the phone on my desk.
That said, their coverage, at least out here in the country, is awful. I'm not that far from Dallas/Fort Worth, perhaps an hour on a fairly main artery. To use mobile data at the office, I have to go outside, and to use mobile data at home, I have to both go outside and be very lucky. Voice works ok in most cases, if I can get reception. Which I sometimes cannot get at all at home or the office, but on my commute is just fine.
Spotty networks cost customers. I occasionally consider changing, but there's no particular hurry as low as my usage and need is. For $35 a month, it's about the cheapest I'm likely to find.
So, the best method to produce art is to leave it to the free market?
Yes. Especially since art is, in most cases, derivative, there are great benefits to short copyrights.
So, the free market isn't the best method of producing art?
We haven't experienced an information-age equivalent of a free market. The closest we've seen is the early days of Napster, and my impression is that it increased exposure for lesser-known musicians, decreased emphasis on the "biggest" acts (hence Metallica's reaction, for example), and generally speaking, increased rather than decreased sales. Not just consumption and downloading, but sales.
The free market isn't perfect, but It's gotta be better than what we've got.
That's been my solution as well, running it on my file server. One of these days I really need to set up a dyndns so I can access it from away from home.
I'm amused that you think a startup airline was abusive in using an existing airport and its facilities to *gasp* fly airplanes!
You have to realize that the airlines operating out of Love prior to DFW were party to an agreement which they signed. Southwest was not present, nor were they party to, that agreement. It wasn't until years later that the Wright Amendment was put into law, later repealed in 2006.
Unfortunately, this doesn't necessarily prove corruption. First, it is a reasonable assumption to say that defense industry interests are more likely to vote in their favour anyway, as it benefits that industry to have them in office.
However, on the other side, it's not unreasonable to believe that career politicians (a problematic concept in the first place) will do what it takes to keep raking in the funds that will help them campaign to keep their job. But that's a fundamental problem that is difficult to address, since even if we term-limit them, they just run for a different office and shuffle around more. Which is still probably better than having 40-year senators.
Data is easy to move. It's hardware that is likely to be found (or taken, for that matter) in a check at an Apple store. But if they want to hunt for it, they're still going to have to pay for that time.
Two fundamental problems with that approach. First, how to define a work (is it an album? a song? A short story? A book of short stories?), and second, who gets the money and why?
And owing to the ass-backwards international treaties on the matter, we're stuck with a third problem: People would simply copyright their material with other treaty nations, who would certainly offer competition for their business by waiving or reducing the fees involved. The treaties are a huge problem in general, really.
I don't see where you get that impression of my argument. I was simply pointing out that (in the example presented) John Grisham's level of income does not necessarily justify any particular level of pay for any other author. In fact, it doesn't justify Grisham's own pay grade on its own either. It also doesn't mean that I think a less profitable author's plight means Grisham has any business making money off The Firm over 20 years later, even if that's what it would take for a less successful novelist to turn a profit comparable to holding an actual job for the time it took to write.
I disagree with your premise. I don't see merit in justifying art based on its profit margin. Those who want to make music will continue to make music. Those who write novels will continue to write novels. With or without copyright.
In fact, I find that much of what art is made based on profit margins tends to be inferior in general.
You seem to misunderstand what I'm saying. I was under the impression that we were discussing a hypothetical, not a reality. However, you are arguing right, and I speculate more upon ability. Of all the states, Texas is probably the most able to stand on its own two feet independently. Hawaii could probably give it a good run as well, as could most of the rectangle states. California would have to get a handle on Sacramento, but could probably manage as well. Other states, especially those with weaker economies, would only have such options if they merged with other states having stronger economies. Michigan, for example, would probably have a tough go of it, as might some other states where manufacturing has taken a turn for the worse.
Texas has the same method to secede as any state does. There are procedural mechanisms by which any state can secede with the approval of a sufficient number of other states or legislators or whatnot. I don't recall the details, as I never see that happening.
There is a second method, and I am asserting no special Texan privilege by saying so. I am basically alluding to the Second Amendment. A possibility the founders knew existed, and I continually hope never becomes necessary in my lifetime. And of all the states in the federation, I think Texas is the most likely to try it. Not my favourite scenario.
As far as why it's unreasonable to think that an artist should make a living doing art than an accountant doing accounting, it's self-explanatory. An accountant performs a job that, to somebody, is worth the wage the accountant is paid. An artist only can reasonably make a living if a sufficient quantity of buyers (or a publisher with deep enough pockets) is willing to pay for their works. To assume that people will sufficiently desire your particular works is silly, but an accountant's numbers are the same under any competent and legally compliant accountant.
I never argued against having copyrights, as much as the idea appeals to me.
I take the view that copyright is evil, but a necessary one in extremely limited doses for the purposes of encouraging the creation of a rich public domain. And yes, that means the artists necessarily need to make their money while they can from it, as they will (largely) live to see their copyrights expire, and in not all that many years in the grand scheme of things. Which does, effectively, necessitate that the artist continue producing new successful works. I don't see that as unreasonable.
What we have today is anything but serving that purpose.
Still not my problem. I don't care if they get jobs as accountants of fry cooks. Figuring it out 's really just not a crucial piece to this puzzle. Non-artists have the same problem. Being artists doesn't make them somehow special and exempt.
I don't know or care how they get a paid gig. It's really not my problem. I care more that they love and believe in what they're doing. Beyond that, success in the fiscal sense is just gravy.
I don't think anyone has a right to be successful because they want it. They gain the right to success by producing something people want, just like any other line of work. Sure, not everyone gets a big break, and sure, not everyone who gets one deserves it.
Slashdot Mirror
These actions are never about the dissidents they find. It's always about making an example of someone. It doesn't even have to be a real person, as long as the coverage is public enough and people believe it.
True, but it's much more efficient to inspect each cow, pig, or chicken than it is the thousands upon thousands of insects it would take to equal one cow's worth of food.
You constantly hear about the problems with insects and arachnids. Ticks carry lyme disease. Mosquitoes carry West Nile. Bees sting but honey is delicious. Wasps. Hornets. Plagues of locusts. Poisonous spiders and scorpion venom. Fictitious depictions of flesh-eating scarabs (actually a type of dung beetle).
It's a matter of perception.
It is written much better than the twilight series, but she still manages to milk about 250 extra pages out of what should be a much shorter story. The film, on the other hand, seemed to be one of those situations where the screenwriter didn't read the book.
I'm on Virgin Mobile, which is essentially Sprint's prepaid service with no roam whatsoever. For the limited use I actually give my phone, it's mostly a safety net in case I have an emergency. At home, I use Google Voice via GrooveIP, and at work I just use the phone on my desk.
That said, their coverage, at least out here in the country, is awful. I'm not that far from Dallas/Fort Worth, perhaps an hour on a fairly main artery. To use mobile data at the office, I have to go outside, and to use mobile data at home, I have to both go outside and be very lucky. Voice works ok in most cases, if I can get reception. Which I sometimes cannot get at all at home or the office, but on my commute is just fine.
Spotty networks cost customers. I occasionally consider changing, but there's no particular hurry as low as my usage and need is. For $35 a month, it's about the cheapest I'm likely to find.
I was under the impression that Otto Pilot hasn't been out there since the days of the 707, and even then, Ted Striker had to land the plane.
Yes. Especially since art is, in most cases, derivative, there are great benefits to short copyrights.
We haven't experienced an information-age equivalent of a free market. The closest we've seen is the early days of Napster, and my impression is that it increased exposure for lesser-known musicians, decreased emphasis on the "biggest" acts (hence Metallica's reaction, for example), and generally speaking, increased rather than decreased sales. Not just consumption and downloading, but sales.
The free market isn't perfect, but It's gotta be better than what we've got.
That's been my solution as well, running it on my file server. One of these days I really need to set up a dyndns so I can access it from away from home.
I'm amused that you think a startup airline was abusive in using an existing airport and its facilities to *gasp* fly airplanes!
You have to realize that the airlines operating out of Love prior to DFW were party to an agreement which they signed. Southwest was not present, nor were they party to, that agreement. It wasn't until years later that the Wright Amendment was put into law, later repealed in 2006.
Unfortunately, this doesn't necessarily prove corruption. First, it is a reasonable assumption to say that defense industry interests are more likely to vote in their favour anyway, as it benefits that industry to have them in office.
However, on the other side, it's not unreasonable to believe that career politicians (a problematic concept in the first place) will do what it takes to keep raking in the funds that will help them campaign to keep their job. But that's a fundamental problem that is difficult to address, since even if we term-limit them, they just run for a different office and shuffle around more. Which is still probably better than having 40-year senators.
Data is easy to move. It's hardware that is likely to be found (or taken, for that matter) in a check at an Apple store. But if they want to hunt for it, they're still going to have to pay for that time.
That's a rather complex answer, and I don't think we'd agree on it.
Two fundamental problems with that approach. First, how to define a work (is it an album? a song? A short story? A book of short stories?), and second, who gets the money and why?
And owing to the ass-backwards international treaties on the matter, we're stuck with a third problem: People would simply copyright their material with other treaty nations, who would certainly offer competition for their business by waiving or reducing the fees involved. The treaties are a huge problem in general, really.
I don't see where you get that impression of my argument. I was simply pointing out that (in the example presented) John Grisham's level of income does not necessarily justify any particular level of pay for any other author. In fact, it doesn't justify Grisham's own pay grade on its own either. It also doesn't mean that I think a less profitable author's plight means Grisham has any business making money off The Firm over 20 years later, even if that's what it would take for a less successful novelist to turn a profit comparable to holding an actual job for the time it took to write.
I disagree with your premise. I don't see merit in justifying art based on its profit margin. Those who want to make music will continue to make music. Those who write novels will continue to write novels. With or without copyright.
In fact, I find that much of what art is made based on profit margins tends to be inferior in general.
You seem to misunderstand what I'm saying. I was under the impression that we were discussing a hypothetical, not a reality. However, you are arguing right, and I speculate more upon ability. Of all the states, Texas is probably the most able to stand on its own two feet independently. Hawaii could probably give it a good run as well, as could most of the rectangle states. California would have to get a handle on Sacramento, but could probably manage as well. Other states, especially those with weaker economies, would only have such options if they merged with other states having stronger economies. Michigan, for example, would probably have a tough go of it, as might some other states where manufacturing has taken a turn for the worse.
Texas has the same method to secede as any state does. There are procedural mechanisms by which any state can secede with the approval of a sufficient number of other states or legislators or whatnot. I don't recall the details, as I never see that happening.
There is a second method, and I am asserting no special Texan privilege by saying so. I am basically alluding to the Second Amendment. A possibility the founders knew existed, and I continually hope never becomes necessary in my lifetime. And of all the states in the federation, I think Texas is the most likely to try it. Not my favourite scenario.
Tangible things are fundamentally different from intangible ones. That's how the concept of tangibility works.
For that particular combination? All of them. Especially since putting "folks" and "wagon" together in English is not a word in the first place.
Self-published artists are, I hope, the future. Labels are a gigantic scam for most artists.
I understand, I just disagree.
As far as why it's unreasonable to think that an artist should make a living doing art than an accountant doing accounting, it's self-explanatory. An accountant performs a job that, to somebody, is worth the wage the accountant is paid. An artist only can reasonably make a living if a sufficient quantity of buyers (or a publisher with deep enough pockets) is willing to pay for their works. To assume that people will sufficiently desire your particular works is silly, but an accountant's numbers are the same under any competent and legally compliant accountant.
Right you are. I did indeed manage to cross that up in my head.
I never argued against having copyrights, as much as the idea appeals to me.
I take the view that copyright is evil, but a necessary one in extremely limited doses for the purposes of encouraging the creation of a rich public domain. And yes, that means the artists necessarily need to make their money while they can from it, as they will (largely) live to see their copyrights expire, and in not all that many years in the grand scheme of things. Which does, effectively, necessitate that the artist continue producing new successful works. I don't see that as unreasonable.
What we have today is anything but serving that purpose.
Still not my problem. I don't care if they get jobs as accountants of fry cooks. Figuring it out 's really just not a crucial piece to this puzzle. Non-artists have the same problem. Being artists doesn't make them somehow special and exempt.
Indeed, but Stephen King and John Grishaam living comfortably is not sufficient justification for other (superior) authors to get the same.
I don't know or care how they get a paid gig. It's really not my problem. I care more that they love and believe in what they're doing. Beyond that, success in the fiscal sense is just gravy.
I don't think anyone has a right to be successful because they want it. They gain the right to success by producing something people want, just like any other line of work. Sure, not everyone gets a big break, and sure, not everyone who gets one deserves it.