We can enrich the lives of all mankind with a press of a button.
Indeed, we can all enjoy the efforts of others and leave them holding the bag.
Then go crying on message boards when the flood of new media being produced today slows to a trickle, as the creative minds move on to jobs that actually pay. Oh there will be people that still produce stuff, but it won't be at the incredible rate we've seen in the last 100 years.
There were. Specifically, the Church was. The Gutenberg Bible was famous for taking sole possession of the Bible out of the hands of the Church and making it available in mass quantities to the masses.
They lack the imagination and creativity necessary to change in the face of massive technological upheaval.
There's plenty of creativity. The masses just don't want to pay. There's no business model to compensate for that, so the only choice is to go out of business. Unfortunately this will hinder a lot of actually creative people in the process who would, you know, like to continue eating.
The only reason they haven't pulled this against Redhat, or any other distro maker, is because it would be a blatant case of anti-competitive behavior. I suspect TomTom will not be the first to be threatened for using Linux in an embedded fashion such as this.
Works must meet some level of "creativity" before they can be copyrighted. Many Slashdot posts would qualify as such, as people stop and take a second to put thought into them (sometimes.) Twitter encourages lots of little posts that are more like wafts of thought, things you'd say to someone. The exception here is that it's printed text and that "someone" is an audience of a bunch of people.
I'd wager that most twitter posts probably (frequently) fall below the line of value in terms of being copyrightable. But if it's a paragraph in length or longer then it's probably a given that it is, however few people will ever go through the effort of actually -securing- the copyright (printing it out, filling out the paperwork, and filing it.) It generally isn't worth it. If anything, I suppose that stuff you publish on boards that isn't explicitly copyrighted beforehand (you tag everything with a copyright notice and archive it with a date and time) falls into that weak unregistered copyright realm that is harder to defend.
tl;dr: It probably is copyrighted, but good luck defending it unless you have it printed, dated, and stuffed in a sealed envelope. IANACL.
This shows that even Pirates are willing to fork over money and pay for the products if the service is good enough and the price is low enough.
Sure, they're willing to pay $7/month for VPN, they aren't willing to pay for what they download. Take away the VPN and they'll keep pirating. Charge a fair price and they'll keep pirating.
"Take whatever you want. Movies, music, ANYTHING. $20/month." They'd make a fortune.
Sure, they'd make a fortune. But would the fortune they make cover the production costs of everything they were selling?
I mean, sure, Slashdot says you can take a PC, a shitty mic, and whip out a better album than anything produced by a major label (and since it isn't label backed, it's Definitely Better(tm)) and go back and make your money touring your ass off (at least, so sayeth Slashdot.)
But that's just one medium. Not everything works like that. Remember, there's costs beyond what the retailers are charging.
The independants have the internet and P2P, and THIS is what the labels are trying to kill; it's about stifling the competetion.
Show me one case where this is true and you can prove it. You're making the claim, so back it up.
While I have no doubt about the capability of independent bands to utilize the internet, I sincerely doubt that the sole reason for these lawsuits is to stifle their ability to use the internet to self-promote, and not the mass trading of works that RIAA member companies hold the rights to. No, couldn't possibly be.
The new business model is paid downloads.
And apparently it's doing quite well.
The trouble with this is the indies are giving FREE downloads for promotion and making their money off CDs and live shows.
And I'd wager that the majority of p2p-shared music isn't that of the indies, but that of the majors. You know, popular culture and all that.
I sincerely believe that the reasons are much simpler and don't lead back to this paranoid conspiracy that you propose. The suits are direct, scattershot with lots of collateral damage, and brick stupid. But not nearly as conspiratorial as you seem to believe.
So basically yet another tech writer finds out that a huge number of applications are still single threaded, and that it will be a while before we have applications that can take advantage of the cores that the OS isn't actively using at the moment. Well, assuming you're running a desktop and not a server.
This isn't a performance issue with regards to Windows or Linux, they're quite adept at handling multiple cores. They just don't need that much themselves and the applications run these days, individually, don't need much more than that either.
So yes, applications need parallelization. The tools for it are rudimentary at best. We know this. Nothing to see here.
What is the likelyhood that some manufacturer comes out with some compelling device and sell it directly to the consumers?
Low, because most people want a fancy device and won't think a second thought about buying into a 2 year contract in exchange for a $100 superphone.
Most people wouldn't pay $600 for a phone up front. The only company that -could- get away with it and be successful these days would be Apple, but they get a huge amount of concessions from the carriers because they can bring the hype and the customers.
It sounds really nice, just having everything for free.
Indeed it does. It'd be great if everything in life were free. However, TANSTAAFL. At least, not in this world.
Somehow they got the idea that they were going to be paid.
Well, they didn't expect that the public would say "we enjoy your work, but fuck you." and since
payday is almost over
They'll do whatever anyone else does when they stop getting paid. They'll quit doing it and move on.
So, yes, paying for movies and music is a political statement. A rabidly antisocial and greedy political statement.
No, it's my way of encouraging them to create more. You would just as soon rip off an independent group of filmmakers with no major corporate backing as you would a major film studio. You'd do it even if you liked their work. And you expect them to make more of anything, when you make the plain point that you'll fuck 'em over on a whim?
And when it is over for real they better like the new "everything for free" situation because there is no way you are going to convince people to go back to the old way.
Indeed, you'd better like it too when the flow of current NEW works slows to a trickle. Cause no one will waste their time doing something when they're just going to get screwed in the end.
What makes you think people are going to stop creating works of art just because somebody else is going to copy them?
I never said that, I just said it would slow to a trickle. The same trickle we had not 200 years before. Personally, I like the fact that tons of works can come out without the creators having to kowtow to someone else's wishes or risk getting stuck holding the bag for production costs while Wal-Mart cranks out millions of copies for slightly more than the cost of manufacturing.
Without copyright, people might not make money out of it.
Well, no one will make money out of it. Which will drive a lot of people out (both good and bad.)
But nobody says people are supposed to make money for everything they do.
Yay, another non-sequitor. Without copyright they are virtually guaranteed to get screwed over. That slight bit of protection (even if it doesn't negate p2p) encourages massive amounts of production that weren't viable before.
Yeah, so we should abolish copyrights and watch what happens as TPB gets flooded short term with existing works, and the amount of newly created works that show up on the site trickles to a near standstill. Yeah.
Let's screw creators over completely, show them what they get for going out on a limb. Yeah.
Pirates will sap the Indie developer's profits as well, once all the studios currently active producing good games give up the ghost.
Especially if the Slashdot dream of pirate distribution replacing paid distribution completely comes true. No better way to compensate developers than to screw them over completely, that's the Slashdot anti-copyright way!
This is about a state government going "we don't like that you're going to have him come talk, please DO NOT LET HIM SPEAK."
In this case, they are limited and -cannot- force the issue. If they were able to go "YOU WILL NOT LET HIM SPEAK BECAUSE HE OFFENDS US" then they would be forced to do so for anyone else the university invites if they ever offend anyone. Otherwise it is tyranny of the majority and the purpose of government is lost.
It's not a case about first amendment rights, yet, because the government cannot force the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, we can all enjoy the efforts of others and leave them holding the bag.
Then go crying on message boards when the flood of new media being produced today slows to a trickle, as the creative minds move on to jobs that actually pay. Oh there will be people that still produce stuff, but it won't be at the incredible rate we've seen in the last 100 years.
Oh but what if it's not something can can be done as a performing art?
What if it's a video game, animation, or software?
There's more to copyright than music, but Slashdot seems to forget this fact and call the problem solved.
Doesn't the GPLv3 have a statement similar to this?
Hey, let's throw out bad numbers and compare hardware that's totally different.
MacBook: $1000-$1500
- Core 2 Duo
- Nvidia graphics
- OS X
Average Netbook: $300
- Intel Atom
- Integrated Intel Graphics
- Linux
OS X -is- generally more user friendly and the macbook doesn't have, well, crap for hardware. Unless you mean to imply that an Atom == Core 2 Duo?
There were. Specifically, the Church was. The Gutenberg Bible was famous for taking sole possession of the Bible out of the hands of the Church and making it available in mass quantities to the masses.
There's plenty of creativity. The masses just don't want to pay. There's no business model to compensate for that, so the only choice is to go out of business. Unfortunately this will hinder a lot of actually creative people in the process who would, you know, like to continue eating.
Except this is why they use FAT, to avoid this.
The only reason they haven't pulled this against Redhat, or any other distro maker, is because it would be a blatant case of anti-competitive behavior. I suspect TomTom will not be the first to be threatened for using Linux in an embedded fashion such as this.
Works must meet some level of "creativity" before they can be copyrighted. Many Slashdot posts would qualify as such, as people stop and take a second to put thought into them (sometimes.) Twitter encourages lots of little posts that are more like wafts of thought, things you'd say to someone. The exception here is that it's printed text and that "someone" is an audience of a bunch of people.
I'd wager that most twitter posts probably (frequently) fall below the line of value in terms of being copyrightable. But if it's a paragraph in length or longer then it's probably a given that it is, however few people will ever go through the effort of actually -securing- the copyright (printing it out, filling out the paperwork, and filing it.) It generally isn't worth it. If anything, I suppose that stuff you publish on boards that isn't explicitly copyrighted beforehand (you tag everything with a copyright notice and archive it with a date and time) falls into that weak unregistered copyright realm that is harder to defend.
tl;dr: It probably is copyrighted, but good luck defending it unless you have it printed, dated, and stuffed in a sealed envelope. IANACL.
So both sides are in the wrong here?
Good to know!
And what, exactly, is TPB about aside from helping people screw over the people who created the works listed on their site?
If you're going to encourage people to screw someone over, screw over someone who can't defend themselves!
No, but your argument is still pointless.
Some people don't have a mortgage to worry about. Some (like myself) don't consider buying a house a priority (especially not these days.)
The supercheap phone works for you? Great! But that's not an argument against an iPhone, or any smartphone for that matter.
It's like saying "I don't need it, how could anyone else!"
Sure, they're willing to pay $7/month for VPN, they aren't willing to pay for what they download. Take away the VPN and they'll keep pirating. Charge a fair price and they'll keep pirating.
Sure, they'd make a fortune. But would the fortune they make cover the production costs of everything they were selling?
I mean, sure, Slashdot says you can take a PC, a shitty mic, and whip out a better album than anything produced by a major label (and since it isn't label backed, it's Definitely Better(tm)) and go back and make your money touring your ass off (at least, so sayeth Slashdot.)
But that's just one medium. Not everything works like that. Remember, there's costs beyond what the retailers are charging.
Show me one case where this is true and you can prove it. You're making the claim, so back it up.
While I have no doubt about the capability of independent bands to utilize the internet, I sincerely doubt that the sole reason for these lawsuits is to stifle their ability to use the internet to self-promote, and not the mass trading of works that RIAA member companies hold the rights to. No, couldn't possibly be.
And apparently it's doing quite well.
And I'd wager that the majority of p2p-shared music isn't that of the indies, but that of the majors. You know, popular culture and all that.
I sincerely believe that the reasons are much simpler and don't lead back to this paranoid conspiracy that you propose. The suits are direct, scattershot with lots of collateral damage, and brick stupid. But not nearly as conspiratorial as you seem to believe.
It's an acknowledgment of how easily skewed online polls are.
On top of that, it's easy to mobilize people who spend large amounts of time on the internet to do something that is, effectively, trivial.
DMZ = All ports not forwarded to other machines are routed to the IP specified as the "DMZ" IP.
So what we have is not simply routers getting attacked, but actual machines that are completely unprotected.
So basically yet another tech writer finds out that a huge number of applications are still single threaded, and that it will be a while before we have applications that can take advantage of the cores that the OS isn't actively using at the moment. Well, assuming you're running a desktop and not a server.
This isn't a performance issue with regards to Windows or Linux, they're quite adept at handling multiple cores. They just don't need that much themselves and the applications run these days, individually, don't need much more than that either.
So yes, applications need parallelization. The tools for it are rudimentary at best. We know this. Nothing to see here.
Low, because most people want a fancy device and won't think a second thought about buying into a 2 year contract in exchange for a $100 superphone.
Most people wouldn't pay $600 for a phone up front. The only company that -could- get away with it and be successful these days would be Apple, but they get a huge amount of concessions from the carriers because they can bring the hype and the customers.
Indeed it does. It'd be great if everything in life were free. However, TANSTAAFL. At least, not in this world.
Well, they didn't expect that the public would say "we enjoy your work, but fuck you." and since
They'll do whatever anyone else does when they stop getting paid. They'll quit doing it and move on.
No, it's my way of encouraging them to create more. You would just as soon rip off an independent group of filmmakers with no major corporate backing as you would a major film studio. You'd do it even if you liked their work. And you expect them to make more of anything, when you make the plain point that you'll fuck 'em over on a whim?
Indeed, you'd better like it too when the flow of current NEW works slows to a trickle. Cause no one will waste their time doing something when they're just going to get screwed in the end.
And now for the followup...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/16/national/main4870337.shtml?source=mostpop_story
Good to see kneejerk ignorance is alive and well on Slashdot.
Hey look, it's the perpetual non-sequitor!
I never said that, I just said it would slow to a trickle. The same trickle we had not 200 years before. Personally, I like the fact that tons of works can come out without the creators having to kowtow to someone else's wishes or risk getting stuck holding the bag for production costs while Wal-Mart cranks out millions of copies for slightly more than the cost of manufacturing.
Well, no one will make money out of it. Which will drive a lot of people out (both good and bad.)
Yay, another non-sequitor. Without copyright they are virtually guaranteed to get screwed over. That slight bit of protection (even if it doesn't negate p2p) encourages massive amounts of production that weren't viable before.
Yeah, so we should abolish copyrights and watch what happens as TPB gets flooded short term with existing works, and the amount of newly created works that show up on the site trickles to a near standstill. Yeah.
Let's screw creators over completely, show them what they get for going out on a limb. Yeah.
Pirates will sap the Indie developer's profits as well, once all the studios currently active producing good games give up the ghost.
Especially if the Slashdot dream of pirate distribution replacing paid distribution completely comes true. No better way to compensate developers than to screw them over completely, that's the Slashdot anti-copyright way!
This is about a state government going "we don't like that you're going to have him come talk, please DO NOT LET HIM SPEAK."
In this case, they are limited and -cannot- force the issue. If they were able to go "YOU WILL NOT LET HIM SPEAK BECAUSE HE OFFENDS US" then they would be forced to do so for anyone else the university invites if they ever offend anyone. Otherwise it is tyranny of the majority and the purpose of government is lost.
It's not a case about first amendment rights, yet, because the government cannot force the issue.
While fine for temporary files, RAM disks tend to be small and extremely volatile.
Not exactly a place where you want to host files from your current project, which is what OP wants.