I agree. Being rich is not evil. The goal of a company is to make money, and when they do, everyone benifits. There are more jobs, higher wages, and increased spending which is all good. If a company is losing money, there is a problem. The real issue here is that any money lost by the MPAA is not the result of pirates. It is their own stupid fault for not embracing the technology available. I believe the MPAA is wrong just about all the time, and don't necessarilly believe they are losing money (Spiderman made more money than any movie ever its first weekend). However, being rich is not a good reason to hate them.
If you have ever driven south on I95 from Philly to DC on a weekend, you will notice that the posted speed limit is 55-65 mph, and you will also notice that 75% of drivers are going 10 mph over that posted limit. If you drive the posted limit, you are slowing the current flow on the road, and actually being more of a hazard that you may think. It is widely accepted taht you go at least 5 mph over the posted limit, or else other people get real pissed at you. This just an observation I have made after numerous trips between DC and Philly, not necessarilly my opinion.
I live in DC and on 2 occasions, in the same place, have been caught speeding by one of those camera's. Both times I was going about 40 in a 25 zone. The problem is that the road is not one in which 25mph should be the speed. If I travel at 25, or even 30 at some points, people start whipping around me, honking horns, or tailgating. It is a heavily driven route, and even appears to be a road in which the limit should be at least 35 to the uninformed. Now maybe the problem is that there really is a speeding problem on this road, but that is more likely due to the too slow limit put there, not overly aggressive drivers.
But do they really know it is a bad thing if they don't know why it is a bad thing? What if they were mislead and protesting the greatest thing on Earth? They would have no idea. It is ok to formulate opinions before you know all the facts, but to actively protest and force an entire city to basically shut down without any idea of why you are protesting is insane.
I wasn't generalizing everyone, just the hundreds of people who couldn't tell me why the IMF was bad. That includes people who were leading some of the protests. While I am sure there were some people there who could tell me why they thought it was bad, the majority I ran into couldn't. And that majority was large, my University was housing many of them.
As far as your argument against the IMF, you may want to look at the improvements it has made accross the globe. They have done, by far, more good than bad. It is also good to note that the IMF and World Bank have numerous divisions, only one of which does restructuring. The others provide aid, education, and all those other things people expect everyone to have.
What amazes me even more is when you ask a college student why they are protesting, they can't answer. I am a student, and I go to school in DC, so I was around the recent IMF protests, and I was amazed at how many of my fellow students had no idea why they though the IMF was bad, just that it was, and U2 didn't like it.
While I understand your concern, I doubt that this PAC would be one of the ones who would be dropping ads 60 days before the election. The law was passed to stop the NRAs and EPAs from dropping exspensive, sometimes decietful ads right before the election when no one can do anything about them.
This PAC, on the other hand, probably couldn't do that anyway, so it doesn't matter. They still will be able to lobby congress and do all that other stuff, and it allows them to save their money instead of trying to throw out 1 or 2 commercials that will get lost in the blizzard of campaign ads.
I would like to make one last comment in regards to this issue. The idea that you can't own an idea is wrong. Look at what a patent is. It is simply a "copyright" on a process, item, or an idea on something. Many things may be patented before they physically exist. And, while the ideas need to be written down, it is not the drawing or diagram of the object that is being patented, but the idea behind it. No, a generic superhero cannot be patented, but many other ideas can. Does that mean new ideas and works cannot be generated from this patent? No. But, they cannot be identical to the patent. That means that in the end, the new idea is a derivative original.
Thank you for an argument that lacked personal attacks. I tend to find arguments much more persuasive when there is not personal insult in them.
First, I would like to say that many of my previous arguments sucked. I'll admit that, and maybe we can move on. I wrote those hastily, and did in fact say things that I really didn't mean, or said things that I should have clarified more closely. With that said, I would like to start again, and maybe clear up some of the confusion I may have caused.
First, I was directly responding to this comment
If you write a program, which allows people to copy information from a physical source and digitalize it, when in digital form, its 1s and 0s, its no longer the original.
In this instance, the person who made this post is, I am assuming, writting about mp3. A musical work is a collection of ideas organized into a collective piece. This original post was implying that by digitalizing the work, we were creating a new work, complettely different from the first, and thus it should not be protected under copyright. I disagreed. It is comparable to taking a written movie script (pen and paper) and putting it into a text file and claiming it is yours. (This argument does not imply that I am against mp3s, just the idea that calling them "mine" is false. While the file may be mine, what is contained in that file is not. I strongly believe in fair use, and totally reject the idea that this right should be curbed.)
In the process of arguing this point, I made some poor statements in which I interchanged ideas and works. In my opinion, most new ideas are inspired, or as you say, derived, from previous ideas. It is also be true that many new ideas are inspired by other previous works.
However, the original idea is not our own, nor is the original work. We now own the rights to the derivative. In your case, when you post, you own that post up to the moment you place you sig.
People are stimulated by external sources daily, and this causes inspiration. Some may choose to draw, or perform, or write to express this. If this person uses another work in expressing whatever he feels, it is only right that he cite that works owners. Sometimes, that includes monetary payment, such as sampling a song.
In the case of using ideas, the line is drawn in whether you are expressing these ideas as your own. If you are using ideas that are then creating derivatives, there is no issue. Often, it is expected that you cite where this idea came from, but often that is not possible. However, if you are using ideas that are not your own as your own, there is an issue. I believe I did make this distiction earlier.
In either case, there are some rules that need to be followed. While ideas are free for all to hear, think about, and then comment on, there is a certain amount of ownership to those ideas that some may choose to hold.
In the case of your posts, if you made a profound statement that, say, changed a crtical business process, and chose not to release it to the public domain, then I am assuming you may want to reap the benifits, although it is in your rights not to. And, in this case, it is both the work and the idea that would have copyright implications. However, if no new ideas exist, then this would be a mute point.
I beleive there should be limits to copyright protection, but there must also be some sort of protection on intellectual property. The line here is fine, and that is why the problems are arising.
A personal attack is never warranted in a debate. And, even if I didn't understand the difference between an idea and a work (which is sometimes much smaller than you may think), that is not a justification for calling me "small minded". I have no problem debating issues, accepting when I lose and relishing in my wins, but not when someone I don't know remarks negativly about my thinking capacity. It has no place in any debate, and with that I leave you with your views. And if you read my post, I noted that you did give up your copyright protection. I just didn't think I needed to declare how, seeing as though you do it at the end of every post.
I do not object to the use of ideas in creating new ideas. However, it is important to note that there is a difference between getting inspiration from an idea and using someone else's idea as your own. I see things all the time that I did not think of, but cause me to have my own ideas. That is different than me trying to pass off someone else's ideas as my own. Also, I was not arguing against freedom of speech, or the press. I was responding to the idea that taking someone's work and making it your own is in somehow OK.
Sampling, collage, works that are homages to other works, retellings, reactions, satires, parodies
These are all original works, inspired from someone else's ideas. You cannot claim that copying music (changing analog to digital) is a new idea inspired by a previous idea. It just is not. As far as your word-coiners example, language is not copyrighted. However, your words, combined into this post, is. It is the idea that is copyrighted. While you do not want any sort of recognition for writting this (money or just a citation) does not mean it was not copyrighted.
Also, just a comment on your debate abilities. The moment you personally attack your opponent( " you're very small-minded"), you lose any sort of validity in your argument. Try to keep your arguments on the issue, not the person saying them, especially since 2 paragraphs are not nearly enough writting to understand who I am, or whether or not I am small-minded.
Also, while we're discussing useless personal attacks, I would like to add that art does mean a lot to me, but that is not an excuse to pirate works of others. The idea that you can say what I value in life based on a short plagerism argument is absurd.
Yeah, was kinda rushed when I typed that. Real Player does suck (notice the typo), and I forgot I said they made better software. What I meant was that they were an alternative that many people use. Sorry about the confusion.
Finally someone else who understands how this works. Why can't people see the difference between physical "things" and intellectual property? I have had a grasp on this since 4th grade when my teachers first told me about plagerism. However, it seems that the educated people who read this board just disregard this concept because it doesn't fit with what they want to do.
If it were a pen and paper, and someone said you cant draw this because this drawing is under copyright,they'd be removing your freedom as an artist.
Your freedom of an artist is not unlimited. Intellectual propert is propety under the law, and it is up to the owner to dictate who gets to use it. Imagine if someone made a batman comic without DC's permission. Do you feel DC comics would be ok with that?
We made it, sure we made this new digital work from someone elses work but everyone makes everything from someone elses idea.
That is called plagerism. It is illegal, no doubt. By creating new works from other idea's, you must pay for those ideas. Some require money, other's require a citation. It is the music industries right to say we want money.
This does not mean that I support what is going on. I also believe in the right to copy music if you bought it, and I believe the free trade of mp3 helps the record industry, but they are seperate issues. It is important that fair use and plagerism not get confused.
I don't really think wmp can become a standard such as IE is. The bottom line is that there are 3 major competitors, 2 of which make better software (Wuicktime and Real Player). Plus, mp3s are so basic that an essential mp3 will be able to play on any mp3 player, just like a basic HTML page can be viewed in any browser. If Netscape was good (which I strongly believe it is not) and Opera was better marketed, then IE would not be as much of a Force as it is now. It was the poor performance of other companies that put IE where it is, despite the idea that it was Microsft bullying everyone out.
If we could have made exact duplicates of cassettes, we would have. It wasn't a matter of copy protection by making poor duplicating hardware, but just not having the technology to make good hardware. I think if mp3's were of a lesser quality, the record labels would still be fighting this because of distribution issues. Cassettes were never really fought because they were analog and weren't posted across the internet, not because they were poor quality analog.
Copy protection is becoming unballanced. There shouldn't be a need to re-invent the wheel everytime a record company tries a new way to limit our fair use. That is really the issue. I should be able to make copies of my cds to protect the original, not to distribute, and record companies are taking this away, forcing me to find new software every month instead of sticking to the same "cassette duplicater" I've been using forever.
I don't know what school you are talking about, where students don't buy the books. Everyone I know buys them, since most of our profs activly use them. The whole rich kid thing is also a mistake. I for sure am not a rich kid, yet I buy my books, just like everyone else here.
In the end, it is always the people that are responsible. I can't wait for the day someone tries to outlaw pencils because someone stabs a teacher or someone with it. Anything can influence someone. The real question is why did that thing influence someone.
This whole monopoly thing bugs me.
Dictionary.com definition of monopoly: "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service"
I will not argue over MS's business startegies (goor or bad), or whether they have violated anti-trust laws, but they are not a monopoly. Every product they make is available from someone else, often times free of charge. Plus, there is nothing stopping people from using other products. I know many of the readers of/. have machines with not one MS product on it. While this may not be the easiest thing, it is possible. People need to start using terms correctly.
As a student, I find a lot of the people that study to manage are not technical, and the technical students have a weak idea on how to manage. The solution to this issue is for tech workers to study management. I see a few ways to do this, such as dual degrees, going back to school, etc. But, I see, and hear, that it works most often like this: Tech worker is good, he becomes a manager. Or, good manager is told to manage high tech project. Either way, you have people doing something that they are really suited to do.
I think it is all retail employees you are speaking of, not just ones at Wal-Mart. There are few retail jobs that are worth working, so most of these employees are bitter they are not in one of the good positions.
Just because a good product is owned by a company that makes a not-as-good-product doesn't mean the good product will get worse. Look at Ford. They own Jaguar, which is still a very good car. But, they also sell cheaper stuff. The same is true for Porche which has the same parent company as Audi and VW. 3 levels of cars that all have 3 levels of quality. That also holds true for books. That is why I have to use $150 PH books in my University Programming classes instead of the $50 Que books. They are better. But, if I want to learn basic Java outside of class, I am not going to buy a $150 book.
I think it is great that you uderstand that generally the people in gov't have good intentions. The problem is that too many people on/. don't see that, and arguments get posted here that cannot be backed up with anything more then "well the gov't did it, it must be bad." I respect your ability to clarify why exactly you believe in something, an ability that seems to be getting lost today. On too many occasions I have to deal with people that support arguments with with other peoples opinions, but don't even understand these points. My post was made to the general public here on this forum, and hopefully this series of discussions can make people use a little more of there opinion, and not some misguided distrust in the gov't to support their views.
As far as the criticisms of gov't go, I agree with you to a point. There are improvemnts that could be made, as there are in any organization. Unfortuantly, the gov't is a little more int he public's eye, so these problems are seen more. And, since they deal with people directly, there is more of a sense that these issues need to be resolved now. For every issue presented to them, there are 2 sides that need to be dealt with, and this can take time to decide which side is better.
Maybe I am foolish here, but I have decided to have a trust in my gov't despite these flaws. They have done a pretty good job over the years. Of course I won't go along with everything they say (the cloning debate comes to mind), I will give them the benifit of the doubt most of the time.
Final note, thanks for voting. Too many people who complain don't exercise this right. If they don't like it, the least they can do is attempt to change it.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Being rich is not evil. The goal of a company is to make money, and when they do, everyone benifits. There are more jobs, higher wages, and increased spending which is all good. If a company is losing money, there is a problem. The real issue here is that any money lost by the MPAA is not the result of pirates. It is their own stupid fault for not embracing the technology available. I believe the MPAA is wrong just about all the time, and don't necessarilly believe they are losing money (Spiderman made more money than any movie ever its first weekend). However, being rich is not a good reason to hate them.
If you have ever driven south on I95 from Philly to DC on a weekend, you will notice that the posted speed limit is 55-65 mph, and you will also notice that 75% of drivers are going 10 mph over that posted limit. If you drive the posted limit, you are slowing the current flow on the road, and actually being more of a hazard that you may think. It is widely accepted taht you go at least 5 mph over the posted limit, or else other people get real pissed at you. This just an observation I have made after numerous trips between DC and Philly, not necessarilly my opinion.
I live in DC and on 2 occasions, in the same place, have been caught speeding by one of those camera's. Both times I was going about 40 in a 25 zone. The problem is that the road is not one in which 25mph should be the speed. If I travel at 25, or even 30 at some points, people start whipping around me, honking horns, or tailgating. It is a heavily driven route, and even appears to be a road in which the limit should be at least 35 to the uninformed. Now maybe the problem is that there really is a speeding problem on this road, but that is more likely due to the too slow limit put there, not overly aggressive drivers.
But do they really know it is a bad thing if they don't know why it is a bad thing? What if they were mislead and protesting the greatest thing on Earth? They would have no idea. It is ok to formulate opinions before you know all the facts, but to actively protest and force an entire city to basically shut down without any idea of why you are protesting is insane.
As far as your argument against the IMF, you may want to look at the improvements it has made accross the globe. They have done, by far, more good than bad. It is also good to note that the IMF and World Bank have numerous divisions, only one of which does restructuring. The others provide aid, education, and all those other things people expect everyone to have.
What amazes me even more is when you ask a college student why they are protesting, they can't answer. I am a student, and I go to school in DC, so I was around the recent IMF protests, and I was amazed at how many of my fellow students had no idea why they though the IMF was bad, just that it was, and U2 didn't like it.
This PAC, on the other hand, probably couldn't do that anyway, so it doesn't matter. They still will be able to lobby congress and do all that other stuff, and it allows them to save their money instead of trying to throw out 1 or 2 commercials that will get lost in the blizzard of campaign ads.
I would like to make one last comment in regards to this issue. The idea that you can't own an idea is wrong. Look at what a patent is. It is simply a "copyright" on a process, item, or an idea on something. Many things may be patented before they physically exist. And, while the ideas need to be written down, it is not the drawing or diagram of the object that is being patented, but the idea behind it. No, a generic superhero cannot be patented, but many other ideas can. Does that mean new ideas and works cannot be generated from this patent? No. But, they cannot be identical to the patent. That means that in the end, the new idea is a derivative original.
First, I would like to say that many of my previous arguments sucked. I'll admit that, and maybe we can move on. I wrote those hastily, and did in fact say things that I really didn't mean, or said things that I should have clarified more closely. With that said, I would like to start again, and maybe clear up some of the confusion I may have caused.
First, I was directly responding to this comment If you write a program, which allows people to copy information from a physical source and digitalize it, when in digital form, its 1s and 0s, its no longer the original.
In this instance, the person who made this post is, I am assuming, writting about mp3. A musical work is a collection of ideas organized into a collective piece. This original post was implying that by digitalizing the work, we were creating a new work, complettely different from the first, and thus it should not be protected under copyright. I disagreed. It is comparable to taking a written movie script (pen and paper) and putting it into a text file and claiming it is yours. (This argument does not imply that I am against mp3s, just the idea that calling them "mine" is false. While the file may be mine, what is contained in that file is not. I strongly believe in fair use, and totally reject the idea that this right should be curbed.)
In the process of arguing this point, I made some poor statements in which I interchanged ideas and works. In my opinion, most new ideas are inspired, or as you say, derived, from previous ideas. It is also be true that many new ideas are inspired by other previous works.
However, the original idea is not our own, nor is the original work. We now own the rights to the derivative. In your case, when you post, you own that post up to the moment you place you sig.
People are stimulated by external sources daily, and this causes inspiration. Some may choose to draw, or perform, or write to express this. If this person uses another work in expressing whatever he feels, it is only right that he cite that works owners. Sometimes, that includes monetary payment, such as sampling a song.
In the case of using ideas, the line is drawn in whether you are expressing these ideas as your own. If you are using ideas that are then creating derivatives, there is no issue. Often, it is expected that you cite where this idea came from, but often that is not possible. However, if you are using ideas that are not your own as your own, there is an issue. I believe I did make this distiction earlier.
In either case, there are some rules that need to be followed. While ideas are free for all to hear, think about, and then comment on, there is a certain amount of ownership to those ideas that some may choose to hold.
In the case of your posts, if you made a profound statement that, say, changed a crtical business process, and chose not to release it to the public domain, then I am assuming you may want to reap the benifits, although it is in your rights not to. And, in this case, it is both the work and the idea that would have copyright implications. However, if no new ideas exist, then this would be a mute point.
I beleive there should be limits to copyright protection, but there must also be some sort of protection on intellectual property. The line here is fine, and that is why the problems are arising.
A personal attack is never warranted in a debate. And, even if I didn't understand the difference between an idea and a work (which is sometimes much smaller than you may think), that is not a justification for calling me "small minded". I have no problem debating issues, accepting when I lose and relishing in my wins, but not when someone I don't know remarks negativly about my thinking capacity. It has no place in any debate, and with that I leave you with your views. And if you read my post, I noted that you did give up your copyright protection. I just didn't think I needed to declare how, seeing as though you do it at the end of every post.
Sampling, collage, works that are homages to other works, retellings, reactions, satires, parodies
These are all original works, inspired from someone else's ideas. You cannot claim that copying music (changing analog to digital) is a new idea inspired by a previous idea. It just is not. As far as your word-coiners example, language is not copyrighted. However, your words, combined into this post, is. It is the idea that is copyrighted. While you do not want any sort of recognition for writting this (money or just a citation) does not mean it was not copyrighted.
Also, just a comment on your debate abilities. The moment you personally attack your opponent( " you're very small-minded"), you lose any sort of validity in your argument. Try to keep your arguments on the issue, not the person saying them, especially since 2 paragraphs are not nearly enough writting to understand who I am, or whether or not I am small-minded.
Also, while we're discussing useless personal attacks, I would like to add that art does mean a lot to me, but that is not an excuse to pirate works of others. The idea that you can say what I value in life based on a short plagerism argument is absurd.
Yeah, was kinda rushed when I typed that. Real Player does suck (notice the typo), and I forgot I said they made better software. What I meant was that they were an alternative that many people use. Sorry about the confusion.
Finally someone else who understands how this works. Why can't people see the difference between physical "things" and intellectual property? I have had a grasp on this since 4th grade when my teachers first told me about plagerism. However, it seems that the educated people who read this board just disregard this concept because it doesn't fit with what they want to do.
Your freedom of an artist is not unlimited. Intellectual propert is propety under the law, and it is up to the owner to dictate who gets to use it. Imagine if someone made a batman comic without DC's permission. Do you feel DC comics would be ok with that?
We made it, sure we made this new digital work from someone elses work but everyone makes everything from someone elses idea. That is called plagerism. It is illegal, no doubt. By creating new works from other idea's, you must pay for those ideas. Some require money, other's require a citation. It is the music industries right to say we want money.
This does not mean that I support what is going on. I also believe in the right to copy music if you bought it, and I believe the free trade of mp3 helps the record industry, but they are seperate issues. It is important that fair use and plagerism not get confused.
I don't really think wmp can become a standard such as IE is. The bottom line is that there are 3 major competitors, 2 of which make better software (Wuicktime and Real Player). Plus, mp3s are so basic that an essential mp3 will be able to play on any mp3 player, just like a basic HTML page can be viewed in any browser. If Netscape was good (which I strongly believe it is not) and Opera was better marketed, then IE would not be as much of a Force as it is now. It was the poor performance of other companies that put IE where it is, despite the idea that it was Microsft bullying everyone out.
Copy protection is becoming unballanced. There shouldn't be a need to re-invent the wheel everytime a record company tries a new way to limit our fair use. That is really the issue. I should be able to make copies of my cds to protect the original, not to distribute, and record companies are taking this away, forcing me to find new software every month instead of sticking to the same "cassette duplicater" I've been using forever.
I don't know what school you are talking about, where students don't buy the books. Everyone I know buys them, since most of our profs activly use them. The whole rich kid thing is also a mistake. I for sure am not a rich kid, yet I buy my books, just like everyone else here.
In the end, it is always the people that are responsible. I can't wait for the day someone tries to outlaw pencils because someone stabs a teacher or someone with it. Anything can influence someone. The real question is why did that thing influence someone.
This whole monopoly thing bugs me. Dictionary.com definition of monopoly: "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service" I will not argue over MS's business startegies (goor or bad), or whether they have violated anti-trust laws, but they are not a monopoly. Every product they make is available from someone else, often times free of charge. Plus, there is nothing stopping people from using other products. I know many of the readers of /. have machines with not one MS product on it. While this may not be the easiest thing, it is possible. People need to start using terms correctly.
As a student, I find a lot of the people that study to manage are not technical, and the technical students have a weak idea on how to manage. The solution to this issue is for tech workers to study management. I see a few ways to do this, such as dual degrees, going back to school, etc. But, I see, and hear, that it works most often like this: Tech worker is good, he becomes a manager. Or, good manager is told to manage high tech project. Either way, you have people doing something that they are really suited to do.
I think it is all retail employees you are speaking of, not just ones at Wal-Mart. There are few retail jobs that are worth working, so most of these employees are bitter they are not in one of the good positions.
Personally, I agree with you. I don't really like the Porche, but you can't argue with its performance.
Just because a good product is owned by a company that makes a not-as-good-product doesn't mean the good product will get worse. Look at Ford. They own Jaguar, which is still a very good car. But, they also sell cheaper stuff. The same is true for Porche which has the same parent company as Audi and VW. 3 levels of cars that all have 3 levels of quality. That also holds true for books. That is why I have to use $150 PH books in my University Programming classes instead of the $50 Que books. They are better. But, if I want to learn basic Java outside of class, I am not going to buy a $150 book.
As far as the criticisms of gov't go, I agree with you to a point. There are improvemnts that could be made, as there are in any organization. Unfortuantly, the gov't is a little more int he public's eye, so these problems are seen more. And, since they deal with people directly, there is more of a sense that these issues need to be resolved now. For every issue presented to them, there are 2 sides that need to be dealt with, and this can take time to decide which side is better.
Maybe I am foolish here, but I have decided to have a trust in my gov't despite these flaws. They have done a pretty good job over the years. Of course I won't go along with everything they say (the cloning debate comes to mind), I will give them the benifit of the doubt most of the time.
Final note, thanks for voting. Too many people who complain don't exercise this right. If they don't like it, the least they can do is attempt to change it.
I have also had very good results with newegg.com, as did my place of employment, if any one cares.