Good job on jumping to the insult. At least you're consistent(ly bad.)
moron: how much does it cost to make and distribute a song, worldwide, nowadays? oh, somewhere around NOTHING
It does not cost nothing. There are costs, you simply aren't thinking of any: - Instruments. - Equipment to do the recording. - Knowlege to do the recording properly (feedback? line noise?) - Time to write the songs. - Time to score a song. - Time to do the recording. - Time to master the recording (it's not like you can just dump to.mp3 and you're good.) - Distribution costs (whoa, you thought these were gone, but that website of yours has to come from somewhere.
And that's just for a song, possibly an album. This completely excludes movies, TV shows, video games, and a pile of other media that can be distributed over the internet but still have very real costs associated with production.
the real driving force behind the collapse of copyright: no economic model behind it to prop it up
Copyright isn't collapsing. If it were then I'd see Barnes and Noble printing up their own copies of every book for pennies on the dollar, and Best Buy carrying Best Buy Super Music collections with every song of Genre X. What's happening is people like you feel entitled to screw over the people who actually create these works you enjoy, and eagerly await the day where you can enjoy the works of creators without ever paying them, at all, for it. Which means eventually everything would be unprofitable and a huge percentage of people who create things these days simply will not.
There is a model behind it, it's called paying people for their effort. Copyright allows us other ways of getting creative works out without needing the rich to sponsor works.
and i reserve my contempt for you, whose mind seems to be 15 years behind the technology
Then be contemptful, and wallow in your ignorance. I see you wiped the.sig about your horror flick, did the costs become too much?
So I can't have a collection? Just a list of filenames I need to pay for each time I access one of them?
Thanks, but I'd rather have a physical disk with me and not be forced to rely on network transfers and nickel-and-time payment schemes if I decide I want to watch video X.
Good job jumping to the ad hominem, you might have had a point but it faltered so you resorted to the lowest measures.
they made music in the time of mozart you know
Indeed, and he was paid by kings and listened to by royalty. And as such, made what the kings and royalty wanted. Just so happened he was good enough that they liked what he made.
What if they didn't?
The rest of your post is a nonsensical screed pointing out that legitimate forms of media transport didn't in fact kill them, while your original point was wistfully awaiting the day that you and others could freely trade, en masse (something unlike all previous events), their entire works in high quality.
To reflect your own words back at you, "you sir, are an idiot." Nothing you said has ANYTHING to do with the complete and utter undermining of copyright. We'll just go back to Mozart's days, when works were few and far between, paid for by kings, to the king's taste.
Or we'll just get more trashy reality shows that truly have no value the day after they air.
but everyone will trade anyways, with just more and more bulletproof protocols and apps
It amuses me to hear the slashbots pine for the days when they can rip people off freely. Like the movies and tv shows and games they enjoy today will still be made if no one ever pays for them.
Sure, you'll be able to trade with more bulletproof protocols and apps... but you'll have a lot less to trade as the new stuff slows to a trickle.
Yay, now we can all support Microsoft in their march to take over console gaming, so they can destroy that just like they wrecked personal and business computing. It's so great to support a convicted monopolist in their drive to extend their monopoly from the desktop to the console, when by all rights they should have failed with their first venture. It's too bad Sony couldn't have been more competent with the PS3 release, I hate to think of what shit console gaming could turn into if the only avenue for non-casual gamers is the xbox (which is, of course, microsoft's goal.)
I guess by hiding the Microsoft name on the box, the giant green X pulled one over on everyone.
But if, as mentioned in a comment to the original article, a nine year old makes a copy of a CD as a present for his grandfather, then this child sees _himself_ as the producer of the CD, just the same as he would see himself as the producer of a painted picture, or a pair of hand knitted socks.
Which is about as much thought as I'd expect a nine year old to put into it. These aren't nine year olds, nor are the majority of filesharers. That said, the warez groups in a sense see themselves as producers, the way they take credit for releases almost as if they had any hand in the production of the work they're violating the copyright of.
It's the same as with people willingly paying lots of money in a restaurant, but on the other hand they wouldn't have the slightest bit of bad conscience trying to reproduce some especially good food from a restaurant in their own kitchen.
Not quite. A restaurant is both a product and an experience. And while they may not feel any compunction against trying to reproduce some food, those who are willing to try are few and those who would be successful are fewer, much less those who would do it on a scale beyond one meal.
What's that? A bunch of college students see something they want and can get it without paying? And they're all over it?
Who would have known.
No, they simply don't care about "Intellectual Property" like the majority of every day people don't. All they care about is that there is some form of entertainment that they want and they can easily get it by downloading it. For free. It's maybe 1 in 1000 that you might find does it for media-shifting or time-shifting purposes but the majority are there because it costs nothing.
Another thing people that actually produce creative works have to be worried about is if the concept of plagiarism gets washed under, where students who cheat by copying chunks of Wikipedia into their assignments doesn't even cross them as wrong. Or once they get into companies, and think nothing of copying your GPL'd source code into their program, and violate the license blatantly because they don't respect copyright laws.
Nobody is going to pay. Period. Get over it. There is no "new business model" - there is just taking.
Fine. Then they will get nothing. If people aren't willing, at all, to pay for the production of something then they deserve exactly nothing.
All digital content will be free and there is nothing that can be done about it.
It won't be free, it simply won't exist. Or if it does exist, it'll be significantly lower quality and in much lower quantities. Sturgeon's law holds, however, and instead of having 100,000 works to pick the 1000 good ones from, you'll have 1000 to pick the 10 good ones from.
like a concert or going to a movie theater for something that isn't on DVD
Not everything can be done in concerts, and eventually that movie will be digitized by someone in the chain.
nobody will pay for what is completely free.
It's not free. It's never free. It's only free for you to download and share, and the people who produced the work are left holding the bag, and you screwed them over. Congratulations, you've contributed to the stifling of creative works.
Windows users, raised on a diet of [...] bitched loudly that there was no GPL Qt for Windows -- but the only thing stopping them porting it was the fact that the average Windows user would rather drown in shit than make the effort to swim.
More like, "Linux users like me would rather dunk their heads in shit then help them move away from Windows, even if only one step at a time."
It's damn near impossible to find a Qt based program on Windows, and that's surely a roadblock to adoption, since if I can write an app that uses Qt on Windows, moving to Linux would be easier. But you'd rather just insult the Windows users instead.
in a nation where the ownership of slaves is forbidden, citizens tend to be freer on average than in a nation where the ownership of slaves is permitted.
That's a hell of a comparison, drawing similarities between the enslavement of people and denial of human rights to... software. Completely unreasonable too, since in the end any piece of software can be reimplemented but a person denied rights cannot simply be replaced with someone that has those rights.
and just because you don't understand the importance of having access to Source Code doesn't mean it isn't every bit as big a deal, in its own right, as slavery.
No, it's not. There's a difference, a huge difference, between being treated like property and not being able to fiddle with the source to an application. If you can't see that then no one should ever take you seriously, because you're not arguing from a sane basis.
fansubs tend, historically, to increase sales of the released product, since they generate buzz about a show
This is an unproven assertion. At best a fansub makes the show available to those who wouldn't buy anyway, with a FEW additional buyers. At worst it may be cutting down the number of people who actually pay. I know there are a lot of die-hard downloaders who hate licensors for specious reasons, spouting arguments that have been destroyed regularly over the past 8 years. Suffice it to say, if the number of people downloading a given episode of a show off Animesuki were to buy the DVD it was on, the whole industry would be doing much better than it is now (which is to say, not very well.)
the aforementioned "don't fansub licensed work" rule works in their favor, and such a bad-faith enforcement will shatter the basis for what's essentially a tentative moral code. Treat your fans like shit and they'll return the favor.
The "fansubbers" blew it when more than a few started mouthing off regarding pre-licenses or mid-run licensing of shows, and only made it worse when they continue to sub and release shows for studios that have explicitly asked that it not be done, up to and including the 2004 Mediafactory letter to Animesuki.
The fansub area is nothing like what it once was, resembling more an 0day warez clusterfuck than fansubbing of old.
Make no mistake, the Japanese -are- pissed because as far as they're concerned, fansubs devalue their product.
But you won't hear about issues with foreign licenses in the Japanese media. You'll hear about Japanese P2P users and programs like Winny and Share.
And any actual fan would know that fansubs are copyright violations anyway and that unfavorable reactions should be unsuprising and you should support the creators ANYWAY instead of bitching when they get annoyed with your running roughshod over their rights.
To what extent is this OS truly open, as compared to OpenMoko, which is open almost to a fault (they're moving at a snail's pace) but completely customizable?
Being open is nice, but if I can't fiddle with it at every level (including repackaging and replacing the firmware) then it's only partially open. Will there be locks on the base firwmare put in place by hardware/network providers that inhibit tinkering? I understand that all apps are "equal" but you only have so much control when you're running in Java.
Can you do C/C++ applications? Can you even do anything outside of Java?
The average is anywhere from 100,000 to 1,000,000 -ERASES- before a given block goes bad. This doesn't account for the intelligent remapping most flash chips will do if a bad block is encountered.
Writes are free, and if the controller/driver are smart, they'll spread writes across the whole of the flash before doing any erases. So if you have a 64GB drive and rarely exceed 4GB of usage, you won't encounter any erases for a while.
And how many times on this thread alone have you seen people saying they downloaded something first to see how it was before buying it?
Do you think anyone will care to RISK making something like Indy 4 and prep it for release, only to wait until they're paid a billion dollars sight unseen?
I doubt it, highly. The slashbots may want their billion-dollar-movies-released-right-into-PD world but they've given no means for which that billion dollar movie will be paid for. At least, none that make any sense to those who have the money to pay for production.
If they did not spend much in terms of advertising, then their costs would be lower and it's possible that they ended up with similar or even more profits. Well yeah, if you reduce your expenditures your profits will be greater. But if no one knows who you are or what you're selling, your income is going to be low.
Having an already established name would help
The only thing that made this successful is the fact that they are Radiohead, and even that wasn't able to get over 40% of people to pay. A band with no name isn't likely to be much more successful.
Slashdot Mirror
IKEA Ørnj, of course. Can't forget the unusual characters that aren't used in English.
It does not cost nothing. There are costs, you simply aren't thinking of any:
- Instruments.
- Equipment to do the recording.
- Knowlege to do the recording properly (feedback? line noise?)
- Time to write the songs.
- Time to score a song.
- Time to do the recording.
- Time to master the recording (it's not like you can just dump to
- Distribution costs (whoa, you thought these were gone, but that website of yours has to come from somewhere.
And that's just for a song, possibly an album. This completely excludes movies, TV shows, video games, and a pile of other media that can be distributed over the internet but still have very real costs associated with production.
Copyright isn't collapsing. If it were then I'd see Barnes and Noble printing up their own copies of every book for pennies on the dollar, and Best Buy carrying Best Buy Super Music collections with every song of Genre X. What's happening is people like you feel entitled to screw over the people who actually create these works you enjoy, and eagerly await the day where you can enjoy the works of creators without ever paying them, at all, for it. Which means eventually everything would be unprofitable and a huge percentage of people who create things these days simply will not.
There is a model behind it, it's called paying people for their effort. Copyright allows us other ways of getting creative works out without needing the rich to sponsor works.
Then be contemptful, and wallow in your ignorance. I see you wiped the
That's not a collection. That's what we have now and I rarely (if ever) use it.
So I can't have a collection? Just a list of filenames I need to pay for each time I access one of them?
Thanks, but I'd rather have a physical disk with me and not be forced to rely on network transfers and nickel-and-time payment schemes if I decide I want to watch video X.
Yes, how dare they interfere with the mandatory adoption of an already obsolete video format in a standard that has nothing to do with video.
Indeed, and he was paid by kings and listened to by royalty. And as such, made what the kings and royalty wanted. Just so happened he was good enough that they liked what he made.
What if they didn't?
The rest of your post is a nonsensical screed pointing out that legitimate forms of media transport didn't in fact kill them, while your original point was wistfully awaiting the day that you and others could freely trade, en masse (something unlike all previous events), their entire works in high quality.
To reflect your own words back at you, "you sir, are an idiot." Nothing you said has ANYTHING to do with the complete and utter undermining of copyright. We'll just go back to Mozart's days, when works were few and far between, paid for by kings, to the king's taste.
Or we'll just get more trashy reality shows that truly have no value the day after they air.
It amuses me to hear the slashbots pine for the days when they can rip people off freely. Like the movies and tv shows and games they enjoy today will still be made if no one ever pays for them.
Sure, you'll be able to trade with more bulletproof protocols and apps... but you'll have a lot less to trade as the new stuff slows to a trickle.
Yay, now we can all support Microsoft in their march to take over console gaming, so they can destroy that just like they wrecked personal and business computing. It's so great to support a convicted monopolist in their drive to extend their monopoly from the desktop to the console, when by all rights they should have failed with their first venture. It's too bad Sony couldn't have been more competent with the PS3 release, I hate to think of what shit console gaming could turn into if the only avenue for non-casual gamers is the xbox (which is, of course, microsoft's goal.)
I guess by hiding the Microsoft name on the box, the giant green X pulled one over on everyone.
No, if anything your karma deserves a hit simply for posting a giant ad-hominem.
/g/, where your level of discourse is on par.
Stop being a retard and go the hell back to
Which is about as much thought as I'd expect a nine year old to put into it. These aren't nine year olds, nor are the majority of filesharers. That said, the warez groups in a sense see themselves as producers, the way they take credit for releases almost as if they had any hand in the production of the work they're violating the copyright of.
Not quite. A restaurant is both a product and an experience. And while they may not feel any compunction against trying to reproduce some food, those who are willing to try are few and those who would be successful are fewer, much less those who would do it on a scale beyond one meal.
What's that? A bunch of college students see something they want and can get it without paying? And they're all over it?
Who would have known.
No, they simply don't care about "Intellectual Property" like the majority of every day people don't. All they care about is that there is some form of entertainment that they want and they can easily get it by downloading it. For free. It's maybe 1 in 1000 that you might find does it for media-shifting or time-shifting purposes but the majority are there because it costs nothing.
Another thing people that actually produce creative works have to be worried about is if the concept of plagiarism gets washed under, where students who cheat by copying chunks of Wikipedia into their assignments doesn't even cross them as wrong. Or once they get into companies, and think nothing of copying your GPL'd source code into their program, and violate the license blatantly because they don't respect copyright laws.
Fine. Then they will get nothing. If people aren't willing, at all, to pay for the production of something then they deserve exactly nothing.
It won't be free, it simply won't exist. Or if it does exist, it'll be significantly lower quality and in much lower quantities. Sturgeon's law holds, however, and instead of having 100,000 works to pick the 1000 good ones from, you'll have 1000 to pick the 10 good ones from.
Not everything can be done in concerts, and eventually that movie will be digitized by someone in the chain.
It's not free. It's never free. It's only free for you to download and share, and the people who produced the work are left holding the bag, and you screwed them over. Congratulations, you've contributed to the stifling of creative works.
When atoms decay, they sometimes change from isotopes of one element to isotopes of another.
Does this mean HL2 might go from FPS to RTS?
Or will it just slowly kill us via particulate bombardment?
More like, "Linux users like me would rather dunk their heads in shit then help them move away from Windows, even if only one step at a time."
It's damn near impossible to find a Qt based program on Windows, and that's surely a roadblock to adoption, since if I can write an app that uses Qt on Windows, moving to Linux would be easier. But you'd rather just insult the Windows users instead.
That's a hell of a comparison, drawing similarities between the enslavement of people and denial of human rights to... software. Completely unreasonable too, since in the end any piece of software can be reimplemented but a person denied rights cannot simply be replaced with someone that has those rights.
No, it's not. There's a difference, a huge difference, between being treated like property and not being able to fiddle with the source to an application. If you can't see that then no one should ever take you seriously, because you're not arguing from a sane basis.
Is frankly a bunch of bullshit. I mean, unless you LIKE what he's doing I can't see why you'd think it'd be cowardly to protest him.
I dunno about anyone else but you sure don't seem to be making any point. You certainly are bitching, though.
What?
Please clarify your post, as you provide no references to what the hell you're talking about.
This is an unproven assertion. At best a fansub makes the show available to those who wouldn't buy anyway, with a FEW additional buyers. At worst it may be cutting down the number of people who actually pay. I know there are a lot of die-hard downloaders who hate licensors for specious reasons, spouting arguments that have been destroyed regularly over the past 8 years. Suffice it to say, if the number of people downloading a given episode of a show off Animesuki were to buy the DVD it was on, the whole industry would be doing much better than it is now (which is to say, not very well.)
The "fansubbers" blew it when more than a few started mouthing off regarding pre-licenses or mid-run licensing of shows, and only made it worse when they continue to sub and release shows for studios that have explicitly asked that it not be done, up to and including the 2004 Mediafactory letter to Animesuki.
The fansub area is nothing like what it once was, resembling more an 0day warez clusterfuck than fansubbing of old.
Make no mistake, the Japanese -are- pissed because as far as they're concerned, fansubs devalue their product.
But you won't hear about issues with foreign licenses in the Japanese media. You'll hear about Japanese P2P users and programs like Winny and Share.
And any actual fan would know that fansubs are copyright violations anyway and that unfavorable reactions should be unsuprising and you should support the creators ANYWAY instead of bitching when they get annoyed with your running roughshod over their rights.
No, but the Japanese licensors can request it be done, or authorize a 3rd party to make a request.
I am a heat-seeking missile so I am really getting a kick out of these replies...
To what extent is this OS truly open, as compared to OpenMoko, which is open almost to a fault (they're moving at a snail's pace) but completely customizable?
Being open is nice, but if I can't fiddle with it at every level (including repackaging and replacing the firmware) then it's only partially open. Will there be locks on the base firwmare put in place by hardware/network providers that inhibit tinkering? I understand that all apps are "equal" but you only have so much control when you're running in Java.
Can you do C/C++ applications? Can you even do anything outside of Java?
The average is anywhere from 100,000 to 1,000,000 -ERASES- before a given block goes bad. This doesn't account for the intelligent remapping most flash chips will do if a bad block is encountered.
Writes are free, and if the controller/driver are smart, they'll spread writes across the whole of the flash before doing any erases. So if you have a 64GB drive and rarely exceed 4GB of usage, you won't encounter any erases for a while.
And how many times on this thread alone have you seen people saying they downloaded something first to see how it was before buying it?
Do you think anyone will care to RISK making something like Indy 4 and prep it for release, only to wait until they're paid a billion dollars sight unseen?
I doubt it, highly. The slashbots may want their billion-dollar-movies-released-right-into-PD world but they've given no means for which that billion dollar movie will be paid for. At least, none that make any sense to those who have the money to pay for production.