Do you find not compensating artists for their work to be morally neutral as well?
It is very dishonest to imply that because someone breaks copyright laws, they believe artists should not be compensated for their work.
There are many major flaws in this assumption such as:
Often the artist isn't the copyright owner.
Often the artist is dead.
Perhaps a person believes that this particular method of compensating artists is unjust, but is more than happy to pay an artist in other cases. How many people HAVEN'T paid money to see an artist perform live?
Of course, you would have to be an idiot not to be aware of these issues. You're deliberately ignoring them in an attempt to polarize the discussion and marginalize your opponents.
There is actually a pretty strong argument (both philisophically and economically) against paying someone for work they did once, many times and for the rest of their life. There are many possible alternative means for artists to receive compensation. Unfortunately, they are unpopular with certain artists because they would replace the current "get rich if you're lucky and get screwed otherwise" system with one which compensates honest work with honest pay.
Nonsense. Choice C allows the dangerous situation to continue indefinately.
The right thing to do is slow down.... very slowly. Give yourself enough of a chance to react if they don't slow down. Eventually, you'll either be stopped (and therefore safe) or they'll pass you and be gone (in which case you're safe again).
Allowing someone to follow you at an unsafe distance indefinately is just a stupid idea.
As someone who drives a sports car half of the year, I'm especially sensitive to people with crappier brakes than mine following me at stupid distances. When the unexpected happens and you need to react, the last thing you need is additional hazards to deal with that could have been easily dispatched miles ago.
45 is the absolute limit under optimal conditions.
Bullshit. 45 is just a number they picked. Most speed limits in the US are not chosen to be the maximum safe speed. (And it should be obvious the anyone who's not a total moron that the maximum safe speed for a Corvette and a double-trailer semi are going to be VERY different numbers.)
There are lots of reasons to drive less than the speed limit.
Yes, and most of them mean either:
A) You're not paying attention and are therefore dangerous.
B) Your ability to drive is impaired and are therefore dangerous.
Sure there are some exceptions, pulling a trailer up a big hill for example, but the vast majority of the time it's some jackass talking on their cellphone. Do everyone a favor, if you just *feel* like driving slow, pull over every once in a while and let that huge line of cars by you. (It's really the only safe way to get rid of tailgaters anyways.)
There exists a subset of people who can distinguish audio from these supposed frivolities. So, yes, the $2000.00 speaker cables will benefit some percentage of the population.
I double dog dare you to find a legitimate, double-blind study proving this.
Their claims aren't "ridiculous". They are specific to their experience, while your experience/audio-acuity differs and makes such equipment ridiculous for YOU to purchase.
Without actual studies, this is all it really comes down to: a stupid audio penis size contest.
Everyone claims that their ears are just a little bit better than the next guy's. The guy claiming the emperor wears no clothes, obviously just has a small cock. It couldn't be possible that your $200 "audiophile grade" power cord doesn't actually help you.
(Never mind that I'm an actual electrical engineer and understand how this stuff works, some random guy on the internet says you should spend $2000 on glorified lamp cord.)
there is no reason to get testy about audiophiles buying equipment that benefits them.
Yes there is: These guys are victims of FRAUD.
The manufacturers are flat-out lying about the effects of their equipment. The DA in my state was actually considering prosecution. These guys fall into the same class as the scumbags who used to travel from town to town selling elixers and the jerks on ebay selling little electric fans claiming you can supercharge your car.
The right way to answer this question is with double blind testing.
"Audiophiles" like to make all sorts or ridiculous claims that lead to things like $2000 speaker cables, gold CDs and just a general proliferation of nonsensical technobabble.
Psychology simply has too strong of an effect on questions like this to get an actual answer from a forum like this.
What you'd really find is that as the bitrate of an mp3 goes up, the number of people who can tell the difference goes down. At some point the number of people who can tell the difference becomes a statistically insignificant sample. This would be a good project for some grad student.
I don't know why people want it to fail so badly..
Because it's crippled with DRM, it doesn't "play for sure" and there's no love lost for MS in general.
We need a serious challenger to Apple for no other reason than to force them to cross that final frontier - playing nicely with everyone else (i.e., not forcing their product chain down our throats with restrictive DRM).
THE ZUNE'S DRM IS WORSE THAN MICROSOFTS! If the Zune actually did well, you would see the opposite of what you are hoping for.
Only time will tell, the verdict is still not out on the legality of the deal the suits concocted.
This is part of the problem. Even if the deal is deemed to violate the GPL v2 how long will it take? How much money will it cost?
Even if Microsoft/Suse looses, they can make subtle tweaks to the agreement and try again.
If you want something to be against the terms of a contract, it's best to come right out and say it. If the issue becomes one of subtleties and the other party has orders of magnitude more money than you, you've already lost. At least in the US anyways.
Creators of artwork, in your view, should be forced to eat the cost of their exploratory or development time and only be paid for the single solution.
Not true. I never said no one would be willing to pay for their material up front. This is something the market would work out the same way it does for people who build houses. They could take out a loan or they could be paid in advance. It's not a hard concept. Just think about how any other business that doesn't rely on copyright operates. They have costs too. Stating that artists have costs therefore they must be treated differently, is actually pointing at something the have in common with other businesses.
But you bore me, don't have a leg to stand on
That's funny, because you seem to be the one making easily disprovable assertions. Funny how you gave up your raving about the constitution....
You've got the right idea, but I believe it goes even further than that.
There no reason that one guy has to pay for one initial copy. The are thousands of businesses that need accounting software. There's no reason they can't form a working group, pool some money and hire someone to write it.
Personally, I'm suprised this already doesn't happen more often. Too many businesses allow software vendors to hold their businesses hostage. Companies make massive investments in infrastructure over which they have no control.
And you're still skimming past the fundamental flaw in your theory
This flaw you see is simply not there. There is nothing preventing an individual or group from fronting money for a work to be created. And they could always take out a loan, the way other businesses do. Or is that too much of an inconvenience for the poor, disadvantaged artists?
No one is willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a painting anymore without exclusivity
You state this as though it's a fact when it's merely your opinion. You can't possibly know what I or most other people on this planet would be willing to pay. The existence of portrait artists, wedding photographers and the like points very strongly in the opposite direction.
In general, you foolishly continue to ignore major flaws in your argument. You fail to respond to any actual statements I made regarding the constitution. I read it. I told you what it says. A posted a link to someone else, an expert in the field, backing me up. You have not posted anything to counter my own or Lessig's argument beyond "That's not what it says!"
Prove a factual inaccuracy, a flaw in reasoning or STFU.
The law works in a slightly non-intuitive way here. As a legal matter there is generally no copyright in the appearance of your property; therefore taking a picture of it does not breach copyright law.
I understand that's the way the law works, but common sense works differently. As I said, the law will not catch up until we see some politician's daughter's titties wind up on the web.
A more sensible approach to this matter would allow for some level of privacy and would treat these images the way the law treats entries in the phone book.
Ad ignorantium. Historically, artists were commissioned and each product was handmade, so they were compensated for their time. Now, a painter can paint a painting and it can be lithographically copied...
You still don't get it. Without the first one, there aren't any to copy. That is why artists will still be paid even without copyright. I'm not going to make the first one until you pay me. You can make as many copies as you want but you will not have anything to copy unless I get paid.
I find it particularly delicious that you mention the mandate of the Constitution. Perhaps you're not aware that the Framers were rabidly opposed to ANY devolution of property and ownership rights?
Apparently you haven't actually READ the constitution. Try reading the section where it mentions copyright. It's very cleary seperate from the sections dealing with actual physical property. They go so far as to explicitly say that copyright shall be for a limited time only after which it reverts to the public, a very stark contrast to the statements they make regarding real property. Lawrence Lessig, in his book "Free Culture" goes into this is detail. You are simply wrong on this point.
Nobody said anything about guarantee.
Actually you did:
"Artists deserve to break even at the very least on the work they put into a project."
There is no welfare for the public if you've wiped out all the innovative thinkers and artists
This is simply BS. It is a demonstrable fact that thinkers and artists existed BEFORE copyright. To suggest that the abolishment of copyright would lead to the total cessation of invention and creativity shows an ignorance of both history and the motives of both scientists and artists.
I don't think you get it.
There were writers and artists before copyright ever existed and they were compensated for their work. Thie difference was that they were paid for their actual work and then that was the end of it.
It's like the pharmaceutical industry. Each pill costs a nickel to make for the knockoffs, but the first one cost millions of dollars. If they can't recoup those R&D lossees, they won't be around to make new medications, and if every pharmaceutical company collapses under the cost of a single medication, people would stop funding them in the first place, knowing it to be a failed prospect.
This argument makes the faulty assumption that the only reason people do things is for money. I could give a rats ass about any industry, I care about PEOPLE! If we were to socialize heathcare, both practice and research, it would destroy an entire industry, but that's not a bad thing if the net result is positive for the citizens of this country.
even if it means destroying the livelihood of the artist.
If by "livlihood" you mean, sitting around on your ass collecting checks for work your father did eighty years ago, yes I'm perfectly fine with getting rid of that. Copyright (per the mandate in the US constitution) is supposed to be a bargain that is struck for the welfare of the PUBLIC not the artists.
I'm an engineer. I create IP for a living. I'm actually not terrified of changes to IP laws because I realize that even if all copyright and patent laws went away tomorrow, there is still a financial incentive to create, just like there was before those laws existed.
If society needs a spreadsheet program, there's nothing stopping people from pooling their money and hiring someone to write it. Copyright or no copyright.
Artists deserve to break even at the very least on the work they put into a project.
This is what it really comes down to, a sense of entitlement. Carpenter aren't guaranteed to break even, why should artists be?
If you're going to take pictures of my property, without my permission and sell them for a profit, why aren't I getting paid?
All the arguments that Google apologists are making apply equally Google's use of MY property without my permission.
Right now there is a MASSIVE legal problem here which won't be addressed until the resolution gets good enough that a senator's daughter has some topless sunbathing pictures wind up on the web.
Let me be clear here. I don't necessarily think I should be getting paid, but I DO think that Google making money and dictating terms while posessing a virtual monopoly on this information (as far as the average person is concerned) is simply not fair to all the other residents of earth that they are selling pictures of. I would think that at a bare minimum I would at least have the right to use the pictures they take of my own property in whatever way I see fit. After all, these aren't pictures of me willingly going out in public, they are pictures of private property.
Furthermore, arguments about the distance from which they are taken are quite silly, as I could easily bug your house via laser beam from hundreds of meters away.
Are you okay with that? Should I be able to sell your private conversations simply because I've figured out a way to do so without ever actually physically tresspassing on your property? Should I be able to dictate the terms under which you can see which conversations of yours I'm actually selling?
so what would you do if someone started selling your work for 75% cheaper than what you sell it for, and as a result, your income dropped 50% or more?
i think you'd turn to those same IP laws you violate for protection. but then when they see that you ignore them when it suits you, you'd be SOL.
Or maybe he'd just create something else.
The whole concept to working for a little while and then collecting money for the rest of your entire life and then some is retarded.
A normal payment for performing a task is a much more sensible way of doing things. Or do you think cooks should be able to demand payments forever because they served you a meal? You'd be dead without food after all. It's it really important they get paid!
That's funny, I could swear you were the one who failed to actually address my argument, instead dismissing it as an ad-hominem attack. If you can't even be honest enough to stick to the actual definitions of terms like "ad-hominem" there's really no point trying to go farther, as it shows your argument for what it is: dishonest and emotional.
You implied I was ignorant of the failings of capitalism, that my position was easier than learning the "truth". That's an ad hominem if I ever saw one.
You claim to know all about them but your argument doesn't factor them in at all. I suggest you read about both of them AS well as what an ad hominem attack ACTUALLY is. You just don't seem to get it. Your concept of what constitutes an ad hominem attack is truly laughable.
Actually, it's not. An ad hominem is a personal attack on you. Pointing out that a free market doesn't always provide the desired result is not even close. You fail to state, why this particular case of gov't intervention is bad, instead taking the foolish libertarian party line that all gov't intervention is bad.
there is plenty of demand for it
This doesn't mean that it will be supplied at a price those who are demanding it can afford. The market is not a simple as "I demand something, therefore I get it." Especially in the case of children, who are (mostly) legally unable to work.
He's not looking at the platform on its technical merits but on the hot air spit out by someone who's job is to spew hot air.
You would think that based on Ballmer's actions, but he's actually supposed to be running the company, not throwing chairs around and shooting his mouth off.
like choosing to run or not choosing to run Linux based on Linus statement
This is a horrible analogy. With free software, there is no one guy who gets to distribute the software. If Linus becomes a total idiot, the community will simply fork linux and move on. If Ballmer does the same thing, you're stuck with whatever he gives you. You're fucked, not forked.
It has nothing to do with the ability of the platform
The future viability of a platform is just as important as its technical capabilities today.
Should someone who makes technology decisions based on his emotional reaction to Steve Balmer's FUD really be a CIO?
Who says it's emotional?
You can look at the "benefit" that is being reaped from this deal with Microsoft and say:
"Do I really want my company to be assosciated with these guys? Can I trust them?"
Of course a decent CIO should know that you can't trust Microsoft at all. this should be obvious from all the charred, burned-out corpses of former Microsoft "partners" littering the IT landscape.
Good. Then support ending socialized education so that you have the freedom to choose the quality of your child's education.
Unless you're poor, in which case your children get to be unedcated and poor too.
What a great idea!
Let's do this for everything:
Roads, fire departments, police protection, water supply, etc.
Wouldn't that just be awesome! That way our inner city ghettos will turn into miniature third world nations. And then you can build a big frickin' wall around your house and hire a private security team to protect you 24/7. Obviously that's MUCH more efficient than actually learing about things like market failure and natural monopolies.
Public education is a good thing, just like public roads.
Sure there's always a few greedy fuckers who believe the world would be better if they had certain roads all to themselves, but they fail to see the big picture.
To put it simply:
The argument you're making could be made in favor of the elimination of ANY gov't service or even the government itself.
Who is Bill O'Reilly and why the hell should I care about what he has got to say?
He's on TV, that's why you should care.
After all, FOX would never air anything senational or just plain stupid.
They work hard to give you nothing but reliable, fact-checked information from people with impeccable credentials.
Why do you hate America so much, anyways?
Two liquids that close in vapor pressure are very difficult to separate (and requires expensive distillation equipment according to the wiki).
As opposed to a fusor?
I would think that if you can build a working fusor, it is within your grasp to build a still. Although I bet he actually just bought deuterium from a supplier.
Hovsepian would have been remiss to his shareholders to not sign it.
I've gotta call BS on this one, it is quite easy to argue that the loss in community goodwill and the potential for a future breech of contract lawsuit by Microsft far outweigh any supposed benefit. (Note how breech of contract claims have given SCO ammunition.)
Furthermore, the legal "duty to shareholders" applies only to grossly inappropriate decisions. This is why CEO's don't find up in jail for corporate charitable contributions.
There's also a good body of evidence to support a claim that Microsoft, as a company, simply does not make agreements in "good faith" with anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
It is very dishonest to imply that because someone breaks copyright laws, they believe artists should not be compensated for their work.
There are many major flaws in this assumption such as:
Of course, you would have to be an idiot not to be aware of these issues. You're deliberately ignoring them in an attempt to polarize the discussion and marginalize your opponents.
There is actually a pretty strong argument (both philisophically and economically) against paying someone for work they did once, many times and for the rest of their life. There are many possible alternative means for artists to receive compensation. Unfortunately, they are unpopular with certain artists because they would replace the current "get rich if you're lucky and get screwed otherwise" system with one which compensates honest work with honest pay.
The correct answer is c.
Nonsense. Choice C allows the dangerous situation to continue indefinately.
The right thing to do is slow down.... very slowly. Give yourself enough of a chance to react if they don't slow down. Eventually, you'll either be stopped (and therefore safe) or they'll pass you and be gone (in which case you're safe again).
Allowing someone to follow you at an unsafe distance indefinately is just a stupid idea.
As someone who drives a sports car half of the year, I'm especially sensitive to people with crappier brakes than mine following me at stupid distances. When the unexpected happens and you need to react, the last thing you need is additional hazards to deal with that could have been easily dispatched miles ago.
45 is the absolute limit under optimal conditions.
Bullshit. 45 is just a number they picked. Most speed limits in the US are not chosen to be the maximum safe speed. (And it should be obvious the anyone who's not a total moron that the maximum safe speed for a Corvette and a double-trailer semi are going to be VERY different numbers.)
There are lots of reasons to drive less than the speed limit.
Yes, and most of them mean either:
A) You're not paying attention and are therefore dangerous.
B) Your ability to drive is impaired and are therefore dangerous.
Sure there are some exceptions, pulling a trailer up a big hill for example, but the vast majority of the time it's some jackass talking on their cellphone. Do everyone a favor, if you just *feel* like driving slow, pull over every once in a while and let that huge line of cars by you. (It's really the only safe way to get rid of tailgaters anyways.)
There exists a subset of people who can distinguish audio from these supposed frivolities. So, yes, the $2000.00 speaker cables will benefit some percentage of the population.
I double dog dare you to find a legitimate, double-blind study proving this.
Their claims aren't "ridiculous". They are specific to their experience, while your experience/audio-acuity differs and makes such equipment ridiculous for YOU to purchase.
Without actual studies, this is all it really comes down to: a stupid audio penis size contest.
Everyone claims that their ears are just a little bit better than the next guy's. The guy claiming the emperor wears no clothes, obviously just has a small cock. It couldn't be possible that your $200 "audiophile grade" power cord doesn't actually help you.
(Never mind that I'm an actual electrical engineer and understand how this stuff works, some random guy on the internet says you should spend $2000 on glorified lamp cord.)
there is no reason to get testy about audiophiles buying equipment that benefits them.
Yes there is: These guys are victims of FRAUD.
The manufacturers are flat-out lying about the effects of their equipment. The DA in my state was actually considering prosecution. These guys fall into the same class as the scumbags who used to travel from town to town selling elixers and the jerks on ebay selling little electric fans claiming you can supercharge your car.
The right way to answer this question is with double blind testing.
"Audiophiles" like to make all sorts or ridiculous claims that lead to things like $2000 speaker cables, gold CDs and just a general proliferation of nonsensical technobabble.
Psychology simply has too strong of an effect on questions like this to get an actual answer from a forum like this.
What you'd really find is that as the bitrate of an mp3 goes up, the number of people who can tell the difference goes down. At some point the number of people who can tell the difference becomes a statistically insignificant sample. This would be a good project for some grad student.
I don't know why people want it to fail so badly..
Because it's crippled with DRM, it doesn't "play for sure" and there's no love lost for MS in general.
We need a serious challenger to Apple for no other reason than to force them to cross that final frontier - playing nicely with everyone else (i.e., not forcing their product chain down our throats with restrictive DRM).
THE ZUNE'S DRM IS WORSE THAN MICROSOFTS! If the Zune actually did well, you would see the opposite of what you are hoping for.
ATSC doesn't contain any DRM at all, unless you count the broadcast flag
I'm sorry but:
Why the FUCK wouldn't you count the broadcast flag?
The broadcast flag is DRM, plain and simple.
What you said was like saying:
"There aren't any weapons here, unless you count that box of guns in the corner."
Only time will tell, the verdict is still not out on the legality of the deal the suits concocted.
This is part of the problem. Even if the deal is deemed to violate the GPL v2 how long will it take? How much money will it cost?
Even if Microsoft/Suse looses, they can make subtle tweaks to the agreement and try again.
If you want something to be against the terms of a contract, it's best to come right out and say it. If the issue becomes one of subtleties and the other party has orders of magnitude more money than you, you've already lost. At least in the US anyways.
Creators of artwork, in your view, should be forced to eat the cost of their exploratory or development time and only be paid for the single solution.
Not true. I never said no one would be willing to pay for their material up front. This is something the market would work out the same way it does for people who build houses. They could take out a loan or they could be paid in advance. It's not a hard concept. Just think about how any other business that doesn't rely on copyright operates. They have costs too. Stating that artists have costs therefore they must be treated differently, is actually pointing at something the have in common with other businesses.
But you bore me, don't have a leg to stand on
That's funny, because you seem to be the one making easily disprovable assertions. Funny how you gave up your raving about the constitution....
You've got the right idea, but I believe it goes even further than that.
There no reason that one guy has to pay for one initial copy. The are thousands of businesses that need accounting software. There's no reason they can't form a working group, pool some money and hire someone to write it.
Personally, I'm suprised this already doesn't happen more often. Too many businesses allow software vendors to hold their businesses hostage. Companies make massive investments in infrastructure over which they have no control.
And you're still skimming past the fundamental flaw in your theory
This flaw you see is simply not there. There is nothing preventing an individual or group from fronting money for a work to be created. And they could always take out a loan, the way other businesses do. Or is that too much of an inconvenience for the poor, disadvantaged artists?
No one is willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a painting anymore without exclusivity
You state this as though it's a fact when it's merely your opinion. You can't possibly know what I or most other people on this planet would be willing to pay. The existence of portrait artists, wedding photographers and the like points very strongly in the opposite direction.
In general, you foolishly continue to ignore major flaws in your argument. You fail to respond to any actual statements I made regarding the constitution. I read it. I told you what it says. A posted a link to someone else, an expert in the field, backing me up. You have not posted anything to counter my own or Lessig's argument beyond "That's not what it says!"
Prove a factual inaccuracy, a flaw in reasoning or STFU.
The law works in a slightly non-intuitive way here. As a legal matter there is generally no copyright in the appearance of your property; therefore taking a picture of it does not breach copyright law.
I understand that's the way the law works, but common sense works differently. As I said, the law will not catch up until we see some politician's daughter's titties wind up on the web.
A more sensible approach to this matter would allow for some level of privacy and would treat these images the way the law treats entries in the phone book.
Ad ignorantium. Historically, artists were commissioned and each product was handmade, so they were compensated for their time. Now, a painter can paint a painting and it can be lithographically copied...
You still don't get it. Without the first one, there aren't any to copy. That is why artists will still be paid even without copyright. I'm not going to make the first one until you pay me. You can make as many copies as you want but you will not have anything to copy unless I get paid.
I find it particularly delicious that you mention the mandate of the Constitution. Perhaps you're not aware that the Framers were rabidly opposed to ANY devolution of property and ownership rights?
Apparently you haven't actually READ the constitution. Try reading the section where it mentions copyright. It's very cleary seperate from the sections dealing with actual physical property. They go so far as to explicitly say that copyright shall be for a limited time only after which it reverts to the public, a very stark contrast to the statements they make regarding real property. Lawrence Lessig, in his book "Free Culture" goes into this is detail. You are simply wrong on this point.
Nobody said anything about guarantee.
Actually you did:
"Artists deserve to break even at the very least on the work they put into a project."
There is no welfare for the public if you've wiped out all the innovative thinkers and artists
This is simply BS. It is a demonstrable fact that thinkers and artists existed BEFORE copyright. To suggest that the abolishment of copyright would lead to the total cessation of invention and creativity shows an ignorance of both history and the motives of both scientists and artists.
I don't think you get it.
There were writers and artists before copyright ever existed and they were compensated for their work. Thie difference was that they were paid for their actual work and then that was the end of it.
It's like the pharmaceutical industry. Each pill costs a nickel to make for the knockoffs, but the first one cost millions of dollars. If they can't recoup those R&D lossees, they won't be around to make new medications, and if every pharmaceutical company collapses under the cost of a single medication, people would stop funding them in the first place, knowing it to be a failed prospect.
This argument makes the faulty assumption that the only reason people do things is for money. I could give a rats ass about any industry, I care about PEOPLE! If we were to socialize heathcare, both practice and research, it would destroy an entire industry, but that's not a bad thing if the net result is positive for the citizens of this country.
even if it means destroying the livelihood of the artist.
If by "livlihood" you mean, sitting around on your ass collecting checks for work your father did eighty years ago, yes I'm perfectly fine with getting rid of that. Copyright (per the mandate in the US constitution) is supposed to be a bargain that is struck for the welfare of the PUBLIC not the artists.
I'm an engineer. I create IP for a living. I'm actually not terrified of changes to IP laws because I realize that even if all copyright and patent laws went away tomorrow, there is still a financial incentive to create, just like there was before those laws existed.
If society needs a spreadsheet program, there's nothing stopping people from pooling their money and hiring someone to write it. Copyright or no copyright.
Artists deserve to break even at the very least on the work they put into a project.
This is what it really comes down to, a sense of entitlement. Carpenter aren't guaranteed to break even, why should artists be?
What I want to know is: Where's my fucking check?
If you're going to take pictures of my property, without my permission and sell them for a profit, why aren't I getting paid?
All the arguments that Google apologists are making apply equally Google's use of MY property without my permission.
Right now there is a MASSIVE legal problem here which won't be addressed until the resolution gets good enough that a senator's daughter has some topless sunbathing pictures wind up on the web.
Let me be clear here. I don't necessarily think I should be getting paid, but I DO think that Google making money and dictating terms while posessing a virtual monopoly on this information (as far as the average person is concerned) is simply not fair to all the other residents of earth that they are selling pictures of. I would think that at a bare minimum I would at least have the right to use the pictures they take of my own property in whatever way I see fit.
After all, these aren't pictures of me willingly going out in public, they are pictures of private property.
Furthermore, arguments about the distance from which they are taken are quite silly, as I could easily bug your house via laser beam from hundreds of meters away.
Are you okay with that?
Should I be able to sell your private conversations simply because I've figured out a way to do so without ever actually physically tresspassing on your property? Should I be able to dictate the terms under which you can see which conversations of yours I'm actually selling?
so what would you do if someone started selling your work for 75% cheaper than what you sell it for, and as a result, your income dropped 50% or more? i think you'd turn to those same IP laws you violate for protection. but then when they see that you ignore them when it suits you, you'd be SOL.
Or maybe he'd just create something else.
The whole concept to working for a little while and then collecting money for the rest of your entire life and then some is retarded.
A normal payment for performing a task is a much more sensible way of doing things. Or do you think cooks should be able to demand payments forever because they served you a meal? You'd be dead without food after all. It's it really important they get paid!
That's funny, I could swear you were the one who failed to actually address my argument, instead dismissing it as an ad-hominem attack. If you can't even be honest enough to stick to the actual definitions of terms like "ad-hominem" there's really no point trying to go farther, as it shows your argument for what it is: dishonest and emotional.
You implied I was ignorant of the failings of capitalism, that my position was easier than learning the "truth". That's an ad hominem if I ever saw one.
You claim to know all about them but your argument doesn't factor them in at all. I suggest you read about both of them AS well as what an ad hominem attack ACTUALLY is. You just don't seem to get it. Your concept of what constitutes an ad hominem attack is truly laughable.
An ad hominem attack.
Actually, it's not. An ad hominem is a personal attack on you. Pointing out that a free market doesn't always provide the desired result is not even close. You fail to state, why this particular case of gov't intervention is bad, instead taking the foolish libertarian party line that all gov't intervention is bad.
there is plenty of demand for it
This doesn't mean that it will be supplied at a price those who are demanding it can afford. The market is not a simple as "I demand something, therefore I get it." Especially in the case of children, who are (mostly) legally unable to work.
He's not looking at the platform on its technical merits but on the hot air spit out by someone who's job is to spew hot air.
You would think that based on Ballmer's actions, but he's actually supposed to be running the company, not throwing chairs around and shooting his mouth off.
like choosing to run or not choosing to run Linux based on Linus statement
This is a horrible analogy. With free software, there is no one guy who gets to distribute the software. If Linus becomes a total idiot, the community will simply fork linux and move on. If Ballmer does the same thing, you're stuck with whatever he gives you. You're fucked, not forked.
It has nothing to do with the ability of the platform
The future viability of a platform is just as important as its technical capabilities today.
Should someone who makes technology decisions based on his emotional reaction to Steve Balmer's FUD really be a CIO?
Who says it's emotional?
You can look at the "benefit" that is being reaped from this deal with Microsoft and say: "Do I really want my company to be assosciated with these guys? Can I trust them?"
Of course a decent CIO should know that you can't trust Microsoft at all. this should be obvious from all the charred, burned-out corpses of former Microsoft "partners" littering the IT landscape.
Good. Then support ending socialized education so that you have the freedom to choose the quality of your child's education.
Unless you're poor, in which case your children get to be unedcated and poor too.
What a great idea!
Let's do this for everything:
Roads, fire departments, police protection, water supply, etc.
Wouldn't that just be awesome! That way our inner city ghettos will turn into miniature third world nations. And then you can build a big frickin' wall around your house and hire a private security team to protect you 24/7. Obviously that's MUCH more efficient than actually learing about things like market failure and natural monopolies.
Public education is a good thing, just like public roads.
Sure there's always a few greedy fuckers who believe the world would be better if they had certain roads all to themselves, but they fail to see the big picture.
To put it simply:
The argument you're making could be made in favor of the elimination of ANY gov't service or even the government itself.
Who is Bill O'Reilly and why the hell should I care about what he has got to say?
He's on TV, that's why you should care.
After all, FOX would never air anything senational or just plain stupid.
They work hard to give you nothing but reliable, fact-checked information from people with impeccable credentials.
Why do you hate America so much, anyways?
Two liquids that close in vapor pressure are very difficult to separate (and requires expensive distillation equipment according to the wiki).
As opposed to a fusor?
I would think that if you can build a working fusor, it is within your grasp to build a still. Although I bet he actually just bought deuterium from a supplier.
Hovsepian would have been remiss to his shareholders to not sign it.
I've gotta call BS on this one, it is quite easy to argue that the loss in community goodwill and the potential for a future breech of contract lawsuit by Microsft far outweigh any supposed benefit. (Note how breech of contract claims have given SCO ammunition.)
Furthermore, the legal "duty to shareholders" applies only to grossly inappropriate decisions. This is why CEO's don't find up in jail for corporate charitable contributions.
There's also a good body of evidence to support a claim that Microsoft, as a company, simply does not make agreements in "good faith" with anyone.