Re:if the protection is reasonable, where's the pr
on
DRM: How To Boil A Frog
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In other words, explain why you should be provided with something of obvious value, for FREE.
How do you measure the value of a song? My point is simple: you can't sell music. In a pure capitalist economy (with NO government intervention), your music would be worthless because it could easily be copied, at NO cost to you. Copyright law creates an artificial scarcity, that is, an ARTIFICIAL environment, because selling music wouldn't work any other way. Instead of saying, "Lets come up with a business model for making music that WORKS" we just perpetuate this fake reality so that some very powerful people can make lots of money.
I suggested musical artists make their money by performing because it works as a business model. I pay for their TIME, not their music. Isn't that what bards did in the past, travel from town to town performing? And didn't they make money? Did they collect royalties on their songs?
I believe you should give me your music for free because you're fooling yourself if you think I'm going to pay for it. But by letting me listen to your songs on my CD player at home, I just might find you enough to my liking to go see you perform live. That equates to $$$ for you.
If you insist on turning music into a consumable medium...
I'm not. Groups like the RIAA want it to be a consumable medium. They want it only to be enjoyed by one person, for a limited amount of time. Think DRM. Think permits to perform. Think royalties.
Don't get me wrong, I still think you should make money from your artistic skills. I just think that there's a better model for doing it than the current one.
As I was reading the article I was thinking, "This is good. If the RIAA believes that it's curbing piracy, it'll take the heat off the rest of us that know how to do it right (IRC, Freenet, KaZaA Lite, newsgroups, etc)."
You're wrong. A car that I make is mine, because it has physical properties that I can hang on to, and also have taken away from me if someone steals it. A song that I make, on the other hand, is composed of notes and words that, when all is said and done, don't BELONG to me. You can't claim ownership of words and notes. Well, you can under the US legal system, but I think that's flawed. And many people agree with me. Words and notes belong to no one.
Now think about this. If I build a chair and it takes me 10 hours to do, I'm going to want some compensation for those 10 hours. But would it be reasonable to ask for compensation for 20 hours of work, when I only worked for 10? Of course not. So how is that musicians and artists ask to be payed several times over the cost of creating the song? If it took 40 hours to make, then make money off the song until you've recooped the cost for those 40 hours. But how can you ask to be payed more money than that? Artists are performers. They should make the music they produce freely available to anyone, but charge per hour for their performance, like any other honest profession.
Isn't that like saying encryption only works when it's illegal to circumvent it. Encryption doesn't work because cracking it is illegal. It works because it is impractical to crack.
Well, DVD encryption was cracked, right? Well, although you can easily find the DeCSS code right now, for a while there it was illegal to distribute, if not own. If DeCSS was outlawed, then the DVD encryption would have worked, because no one could get past it. Now that the DeCSS is available, DVD encryption is a joke. That's what I meant by "DRM only works when it's illegal to circumvent"
But as new customers they will simply accept this as the-way-things-are, because they will never anything different.
I'm not so sure about that. CD's, or rather music, is just like any other product on the shelf. If its value does not seem reasonable, people won't buy it. That is, if people pay $20 for a CD, and they can't play it in their car, or their CD player, or if they're made to pay for again and again, they'll just not buy it. Supply and demand. There is no demand for DRM. People will buy CDs without DRM. And if there are none, then people will stop buying CDs and find some other avenue through which to acquire music.
And remember, people don't need music. If it's too much of a hassle, they'll do without.
Re:if the protection is reasonable, where's the pr
on
DRM: How To Boil A Frog
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It is my artwork.
No, it's not. Many people had a hand in getting you where you are today. You would know nothing of music if it weren't for people who came before and paved the path. You'd know nothing of musical theory or composition if it weren't for you instructors, who got their knowledge from someone else. The sheet music you study, the instrument you play, and the songs you cover when you're learning, were all made by someone else. If it were illegal to cover a song without written permission, if it were illegal to "reverse engineer" a song, and play the melody on your guitar just by listening to it, just how far do you think you would have made it composing that 40 hour song? What you did was pull together all the knowledge you've gained from others' work, and with that knowledge, you were able to craft something of your own style. The song you made is not your creation, but rather the culmination of knowledge that came before you, guided by your hand. You don't live in vacuum. Physical property belongs to you, but ideas do not.
Re:One word on DRM and restricting use of multimed
on
DRM: How To Boil A Frog
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Isn't the point of DRM that you won't be able to play it 40 years from and will, therefore, have to purchase another copy?
I agree, but I don't think that would be practical. DRM only works when it's illegal to circumvent it. Otherwise, along with new DRM technologies would also come cracks and circumvention devices. I realize you can find this stuff even now, but if it were legal, people would just market players that circumvented DRM, and no one would use the DRM-laden players.
Of course it does. It shows us the signs of things getting worse. This survailance is bad because history has shown us what can happen when it's abused.
Obviously no government has ever had this much access to information about the people simply because the technology didn't exist.
Because before the Internet there was no way to record information, right?
We do have systems in place within the government to protect against corruption.
Yeah, that's why we have senators like "the senator for Disney" Hollings whoring themselves out to corporations for $$$? Ever heard of the DMCA? You think it was passed with the benefit of the citizens in mind?
First: No, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. We *elect* people to represent us, we never represent ourselves.
Second: You obviously don't study history, otherwise you would know of all the attrocities and injustices that governments all around the world have wrought upon their own people in the guise of safety. Even our own government has shown time and time again that it is willing to compromise our rights and privacies for their own gain, and yet I still see people like you posting false arguments like "if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide".
This power WILL be abused. Do you understand that? Not maybe. Not possibly. It WILL be. And that's why it should be stopped.
I'm not a terrorist and so I have nothing to fear from this system.
So, just because they promise they'll be good and won't abuse this system for, say political dissenters, or anything like that, you automatically give them the benefit of the doubt? Seriously, why do you assume they're doing this in your best interest? Ask yourself, who does this system benefit? Do you really think terrorists are going anywhere near airports since Sept 11?
Many people toiled long and hard to get that piece of crap made into law. Sept 11 wasn't the reason, it was the excuse. The powers that be have wanted those powers for a long time. I doubt you'll see them repealed any time soon.
You read and hear things that permanently alter your perception of reality all the time. Should all these things be illegal? Maybe you say something that "damages" me by offending me. Should you be prohibited from saying those things?
If you hear something and you don't know if it's valid, then don't believe it until you research it and find the truth. It's your responsibility to educate yourself, not someone elses to make sure they are giving you accurate information.
If the pictures are domestically hosted, it is a crime to host them. Find the hosting provider, get them to yank the pictures. If they are foreign, get warrants and monitor traffic to find out which US people look at them. Then arrest and charge them.
This is ridiculous. Who hasn't inadvertedly clicked on a link they didn't mean to and gotten flooded with popup windows advertising porn? I don't want to go to jail just because some jokester forwards his webpage to a child porn site.
I think slander laws are bullshit. They've been used to stop political dissent. The best way to combat slander is with the truth, not stupid laws that do, in fact, limit freedom of speech.
And what makes people think that the 19-year term suggested by Thomas Jefferson for both patents and copyrights is better than life plus 70, which sounds more like a prison sentence?
Is this possibly the worse fit for an actor in a superhero role since Michael Keaton in Batman?
Most people I've talked to thought he played the best Batman. Oh, and about Keanu, isn't he Hawaiiian? And isn't Superman white? I'm not racist or anything, but I just thought they'd cast someone who matched the character better.
It's very unfortunate that the people who benefit from these "protections" on intellectual property are mostly major distributors rather than the idea creators themselves. And what happens when these companies go out of business and hold on to those intellectual property rights? Great ideas fade away. I think that's more of a disservice to the creator than anything copying would do.
I thought at one point people created art for it's beauty. I guess now it's strictly a for-money thing. If they're not getting money for the idea they had, they'd rather no one have it at all.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, explain why you should be provided with something of obvious value, for FREE.
How do you measure the value of a song? My point is simple: you can't sell music. In a pure capitalist economy (with NO government intervention), your music would be worthless because it could easily be copied, at NO cost to you. Copyright law creates an artificial scarcity, that is, an ARTIFICIAL environment, because selling music wouldn't work any other way. Instead of saying, "Lets come up with a business model for making music that WORKS" we just perpetuate this fake reality so that some very powerful people can make lots of money.
I suggested musical artists make their money by performing because it works as a business model. I pay for their TIME, not their music. Isn't that what bards did in the past, travel from town to town performing? And didn't they make money? Did they collect royalties on their songs?
I believe you should give me your music for free because you're fooling yourself if you think I'm going to pay for it. But by letting me listen to your songs on my CD player at home, I just might find you enough to my liking to go see you perform live. That equates to $$$ for you.
If you insist on turning music into a consumable medium...
I'm not. Groups like the RIAA want it to be a consumable medium. They want it only to be enjoyed by one person, for a limited amount of time. Think DRM. Think permits to perform. Think royalties.
Don't get me wrong, I still think you should make money from your artistic skills. I just think that there's a better model for doing it than the current one.
This is a very enjoyable debate.
Cheers
Or just use this:
login: spamfree
password: spamfree
Merely having the record industry collect money for "allowing" other people to share music peer-to-peer is not sufficient.
Agreed. But I think the problem is in the copyright law that gives them the legal right to collect royalties.
As I was reading the article I was thinking, "This is good. If the RIAA believes that it's curbing piracy, it'll take the heat off the rest of us that know how to do it right (IRC, Freenet, KaZaA Lite, newsgroups, etc)."
it's not
You're wrong. A car that I make is mine, because it has physical properties that I can hang on to, and also have taken away from me if someone steals it. A song that I make, on the other hand, is composed of notes and words that, when all is said and done, don't BELONG to me. You can't claim ownership of words and notes. Well, you can under the US legal system, but I think that's flawed. And many people agree with me. Words and notes belong to no one.
Now think about this. If I build a chair and it takes me 10 hours to do, I'm going to want some compensation for those 10 hours. But would it be reasonable to ask for compensation for 20 hours of work, when I only worked for 10? Of course not. So how is that musicians and artists ask to be payed several times over the cost of creating the song? If it took 40 hours to make, then make money off the song until you've recooped the cost for those 40 hours. But how can you ask to be payed more money than that? Artists are performers. They should make the music they produce freely available to anyone, but charge per hour for their performance, like any other honest profession.
Isn't that like saying encryption only works when it's illegal to circumvent it. Encryption doesn't work because cracking it is illegal. It works because it is impractical to crack.
Well, DVD encryption was cracked, right? Well, although you can easily find the DeCSS code right now, for a while there it was illegal to distribute, if not own. If DeCSS was outlawed, then the DVD encryption would have worked, because no one could get past it. Now that the DeCSS is available, DVD encryption is a joke. That's what I meant by "DRM only works when it's illegal to circumvent"
But as new customers they will simply accept this as the-way-things-are, because they will never anything different.
I'm not so sure about that. CD's, or rather music, is just like any other product on the shelf. If its value does not seem reasonable, people won't buy it. That is, if people pay $20 for a CD, and they can't play it in their car, or their CD player, or if they're made to pay for again and again, they'll just not buy it. Supply and demand. There is no demand for DRM. People will buy CDs without DRM. And if there are none, then people will stop buying CDs and find some other avenue through which to acquire music.
And remember, people don't need music. If it's too much of a hassle, they'll do without.
It is my artwork.
No, it's not. Many people had a hand in getting you where you are today. You would know nothing of music if it weren't for people who came before and paved the path. You'd know nothing of musical theory or composition if it weren't for you instructors, who got their knowledge from someone else. The sheet music you study, the instrument you play, and the songs you cover when you're learning, were all made by someone else. If it were illegal to cover a song without written permission, if it were illegal to "reverse engineer" a song, and play the melody on your guitar just by listening to it, just how far do you think you would have made it composing that 40 hour song? What you did was pull together all the knowledge you've gained from others' work, and with that knowledge, you were able to craft something of your own style. The song you made is not your creation, but rather the culmination of knowledge that came before you, guided by your hand. You don't live in vacuum. Physical property belongs to you, but ideas do not.
Isn't the point of DRM that you won't be able to play it 40 years from and will, therefore, have to purchase another copy?
I agree, but I don't think that would be practical. DRM only works when it's illegal to circumvent it. Otherwise, along with new DRM technologies would also come cracks and circumvention devices. I realize you can find this stuff even now, but if it were legal, people would just market players that circumvented DRM, and no one would use the DRM-laden players.
History has nothing to do with this.
Of course it does. It shows us the signs of things getting worse. This survailance is bad because history has shown us what can happen when it's abused.
Obviously no government has ever had this much access to information about the people simply because the technology didn't exist.
Because before the Internet there was no way to record information, right?
We do have systems in place within the government to protect against corruption.
Yeah, that's why we have senators like "the senator for Disney" Hollings whoring themselves out to corporations for $$$? Ever heard of the DMCA? You think it was passed with the benefit of the citizens in mind?
First: No, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. We *elect* people to represent us, we never represent ourselves.
Second: You obviously don't study history, otherwise you would know of all the attrocities and injustices that governments all around the world have wrought upon their own people in the guise of safety. Even our own government has shown time and time again that it is willing to compromise our rights and privacies for their own gain, and yet I still see people like you posting false arguments like "if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide".
This power WILL be abused. Do you understand that? Not maybe. Not possibly. It WILL be. And that's why it should be stopped.
I'm not a terrorist and so I have nothing to fear from this system.
So, just because they promise they'll be good and won't abuse this system for, say political dissenters, or anything like that, you automatically give them the benefit of the doubt? Seriously, why do you assume they're doing this in your best interest? Ask yourself, who does this system benefit? Do you really think terrorists are going anywhere near airports since Sept 11?
U.S. Army's Improvised Explosives manual
Where can I get one? Seriously.
Many people toiled long and hard to get that piece of crap made into law. Sept 11 wasn't the reason, it was the excuse. The powers that be have wanted those powers for a long time. I doubt you'll see them repealed any time soon.
You read and hear things that permanently alter your perception of reality all the time. Should all these things be illegal? Maybe you say something that "damages" me by offending me. Should you be prohibited from saying those things?
If you hear something and you don't know if it's valid, then don't believe it until you research it and find the truth. It's your responsibility to educate yourself, not someone elses to make sure they are giving you accurate information.
If the pictures are domestically hosted, it is a crime to host them. Find the hosting provider, get them to yank the pictures. If they are foreign, get warrants and monitor traffic to find out which US people look at them. Then arrest and charge them.
This is ridiculous. Who hasn't inadvertedly clicked on a link they didn't mean to and gotten flooded with popup windows advertising porn? I don't want to go to jail just because some jokester forwards his webpage to a child porn site.
Slander?
I think slander laws are bullshit. They've been used to stop political dissent. The best way to combat slander is with the truth, not stupid laws that do, in fact, limit freedom of speech.
Jesus man, they're not saying "don't deal with it." They're just saying, "deal with it in a different way." Chill out.
And what makes people think that the 19-year term suggested by Thomas Jefferson for both patents and copyrights is better than life plus 70, which sounds more like a prison sentence?
Just about everything I've read on the issue.
login: spamfree password: spamfree An account someone posted a while ago and I've used since.
Is this possibly the worse fit for an actor in a superhero role since Michael Keaton in Batman?
Most people I've talked to thought he played the best Batman. Oh, and about Keanu, isn't he Hawaiiian? And isn't Superman white? I'm not racist or anything, but I just thought they'd cast someone who matched the character better.
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/Godwi n's-Law.html
It's very unfortunate that the people who benefit from these "protections" on intellectual property are mostly major distributors rather than the idea creators themselves. And what happens when these companies go out of business and hold on to those intellectual property rights? Great ideas fade away. I think that's more of a disservice to the creator than anything copying would do.
I thought at one point people created art for it's beauty. I guess now it's strictly a for-money thing. If they're not getting money for the idea they had, they'd rather no one have it at all.