Of course books are and will be heavily pirated in whatever format they are placed in. As we move toward handheld computers as powerful as today's laptops, there will be no issue about how readable this or that format is. Users will find a good way to read them, then the books will be placed in that format and people will trade them like they do already today, just in greater numbers.
This is the transition that is happening with all media formats and its ridiculous on Slashdot to even ask the question "Will this happen?"
I am only worrying about whether the writers and editors will be able to get paid for their work. If the book industry tries to do like the music industry and continues to charge as much for their product as they did when they had to physically distribute it, then they will lose out on billions of dollars they could have made by correcting their prices and getting their money through selling more products. And they have to make this price correction early on. If they wait until everyone becomes insulted by their greed like the music industry did then people will not feel bad about cutting them out of their profits. Digital media has come to the point where the consumer now has the power in the relationship and if the industries don't recognize that then it will be at their own peril. I think many of those who pirate would have been happy to pay something small instead for a legal version.
It seems like the ideal endgame of all of these digital media transitions is for there to be direct payment to the artists who actually create the content. If I could go to my favorite bands' or favorite authors' websites and pay something small directly to get their content like 20 cents a song or 2 dollars a book then I would buy a lot more of these things for sure. I think that is the prize we should be keeping our eyes on - freeing the artists from these archaic business models and the huge piles of middlemen that want to continue to get paid from the artists' work. The current debate about piracy really frames this whole transition in the wrong way. It continues to assume that these media companies will have a place in the future of media distribution. For hugely collaborative works like movies, tv and video games, I think there will be a need for media companies to create the products. But media that can be created by small groups or single artists like music and books, there is no need anymore for this huge infrastructure to bring it to the public. That's the bottom line for them, they are soon obsolete and few will miss them. But I for one will always want to compensate artists I appreciate and I think that is a common feeling, so we really need to explore ways of doing that much more directly. If we can transition to this more direct relationship between audience and artist then I think the problem is solved and our culture as a whole will be better for it.
While I agree with the sentiment that games don't cause people to commit crimes, in the interest of understanding the actual data for comparison - I think that those numbers actually could be explained purely as reporting bias. Japan is a very private and very male-dominated culture, which is one reason why this sort of "entertainment" would be able to flourish there in the first place.
In America "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" which is good. In Japan they say "the tall tree catches the wind" which is bad. It is a culture that discourages letting other people know your personal problems or standing out at all.
The degree of ridicule and shame that a girl would face in Japan after accusing a man of rape is very much larger than in the United States. So while you could be right, I don't think people should be so quick to underestimate the difference in culture. I think it could be realistic that a huge number of rapes go unreported in Japan and you also have to consider that the definition of rape between America and Japan could be much different (date rape, spousal rape ..etc).
Actually since the universe has already been created, it is not a thing for which chance can be calculated. It either was or was not created by your 7-foot tall bun-ghetti. We don't know and can't prove whether it was or not. But that does not imply odds. Chance is for the prediction of future events.
Sorry to seem pedantic about a +5 funny post, but I thought it was a distinction worth making.
I find it upsetting that we allow a computerized monitoring system to babysit our behavior anyway. As for the fact that it is surely being rigged in multiple places - that is just a sign that authorities have been given too much power over us in the first place. I believe in traffic safety, but I also believe in the freedom of not being monitored constantly.
I think that we should still be asking the question of whether these cameras should be allowed in the first place. By commenting whether the state, local or federal government should be allowed to get away with yellow light shortening tactics like this we're answering a loaded question that reinforces our acceptance that these cameras should be there at all.
Not unless they can actually create any item that they can imagine, script it themselves and then sell it to any of the active players for microcurrency that they can then cash out into real money. All without breaking any EULAs.
The "pirate your music, but support the band by seeing the show" argument falls down when you do the math. If you pirate ten CDs a week, that's ten concerts you need to see a week -- that gets to be expensive, and a time sink. Then, of course, that there's the reality that not all the artists whose music you pirate are going to be able to play when and where you want them to. In most cases, when we pirate music, our actual contribution to the artists' livelihood is nil, despite our best intentions.
Well first of all "pirating" 10 CDs a week sounds a little excessive. I would say for most people an average of two to five a month might keep them in new music, considering that they have other passtimes. And out of those let's say 5 CDs a month, many people would not have bought 2 or 3 of them if they had to pay from $15 - $20 per album. So if these "pirates" were keeping it legal then they would stick within a budget of say $60 a month on music. Of course all of this is assumption but I am attempting to be realistic while doing my math. These figures fit my personal spending/"pirating" habits.
So out of that $60 I wonder how much the artist would have received? The holier-than-thou anti-pirating nazis trying to exaggerate to make their point might say half or they might say that it gets the artist "closer to getting paid." Kind of like minimum wage gets someone closer to not being poor. I would say unless the album is a huge success the artists over time maybe will be receiving 5-10% of the sales price for the duration of an album. From what Ive read that might even be high.
So 10% of my $60 budget is $6. Over a year $72. So if I go to 3 or 4 concerts a year and buy a t-shirt or two Im probably making up for what I download. That is my math, different conclusion than yours.
And the kicker of all this is, that if the recording industry would sell their albums online for about 3-4 bucks a piece (which is 2 - 3 times the russian rates) they would get all of my downloading money as well and in fact maybe more because I wouldnt have to worry about keeping some of my balance back in case the Russian payment options go offline.
And thats not even going into the reasons I dont want to give the recording industry my money -- such as the awful radio cartel that inhibits musical diversity and locks out independent music or the fact that they have done their best to destroy internet radio, or the fact that they have sued so many regular people who just didnt want to subsidize their cartel. And they constantly rip off artists. And they would make the majority of listeners criminals if it would increase their control over our culture or make them a few extra bucks.
Even after all that I know about them I would download legally if they would offer them at a fair market price which I think is around $3-4 an album. And yes we do get to determine price. The fact that they cant come to grips with the market value of their product is the reason why so many are still opting to "pirate".
Better yet I would love to see some sort of co-op recording system funded by artists who have already made their wealth. New distribution systems (protect internet radio rights). I would love to see technology being used to make the artists money without the need for the middle men. Decentralized. That is what I most hope for. The recording industry sinking and its weasels drowning will only be the icing on that cake.
So when I do the math I use a little more than dollars to calculate. And until there is an acceptable morally clear choice about how to spend my music dollars I will certainly choose to get more for my money no matter where its found.
IF the courts were to recognize the value of virtual property as having the same rights as tangible property, it might help a tiny few people who would have been unfairly denied compensation from these virtual world software companies.
*And it would open the door wide open for taxation of virtual property.*
So if this court actually does get heard, the repercussions of it could be even greater than "clickwrap" reform.
From the summary: But so far most of this action has been about first-life organizations trying to gain real-world publicity by their forays into SL
That sums up Coldwell Banker's move into SL as well.
. . . . 'A small number of land barons mostly control real estate in Second Life, and we thought we could bring real estate to the masses,' [a VP explained]."
Mainland real estate is the worst in the game and is already for the masses. It is hosted on the lowest class of servers (known as Class 3 compared to the latest Class 5) with more sims per server than "privately owned" Islands. Coldwell Banker is another stodgy corporation with no motive for being involved in virtual worlds other than trying to gain mindshare with the 18-35 demographic.
The whole financial concept of treating virtual space like real life land is flawed anyway. As metaverse-style systems evolve to become more distributed like the internet (an eventuality to which even Linden Labs concedes) these real-life style spatial limitations will seem silly. This market exists in this form only so long as Second Life is run exclusively on hardware controlled by Linden Lab.
Linden Lab has already stated that at some point it intends on getting out of the hosting business and instead intends to license the SL server software. So as if a thinking person needed anyone to point this out, this land has no long term value (say 5 years). Coldwell Banker acting like they are taking SL land as a serious investment is all hyperbole. To them it is more like buying up Beanie Babies in the 90s and saying that " a small number of Beanie Baby barons control the Beanie Baby market and we thought we could bring Beanie Babies to the masses."
Having taken part in the initial beta of the Second Life voice client starting two weeks ago, I can say that when voice capabilities come to SL they will certainly make it more useful to educational purposes. The system they are testing already works well and allows for 3D stereo sound. I realize that this alone does not make it perfect for education, but it does mean that it will not simply be a "glorified chat room" much longer.
I think attempting to bring learning systems to SL does have merit. The tools actually are shaping up and aside from the universities that are already in SL, I know of a few other educational offerings that are being developed now that could demonstrate value for educators and students.
I think that this type of immersive long-distance multiuser education is here to stay. Whether it will gain public acceptance during the platform life cycle of Second Life really depends on whether innovative educators keep coming into the virtual world prepared to push it forward. So if you are looking for a polished educational software platform to set up and get rolling quickly, then SL is not for you yet. On the other hand, if you want to be a pioneer and expand your thinking on how virtual worlds can fascilitate education then you should invest a little funding in SL and see what you can make of it.
I work in Second Life. So I don't feel the need to be a troll and bash anything about it to tell the truth. Slashdot is running too many stories about Second Life. These stories get about 50 replies at most and are usually no more than rehashed press releases like this one or obvious attempts to drum up interest in a Second Life. Slashdot readers have shown through lack of comments that they are not interested in this many stories about this subject. Not to mention it is overexposing a young platform and even creating a bit of backlash against it. This backlash is the fault of an overzealous PR machine at Linden Lab more than anything.
I think it would be nice to cool down this campaign and let something that is actually groundbreaking happen before posting another Second Life story. I love SL but all of these stories make even me see it as overhyped BS.
Im currently working as Art Director/Builder on what from my knowledge is the most ambitious project on the Second Life platform to date. I have always been a huge skeptic when it comes to much of the hype about SL. It is just beginning to show signs of being what it promotes itself as.
Decentralized education and social networking are its two main potentials right now so far as sustainable business models are concerned. The platform is still clunkier than serious investors in its uses would prefer, but it continues to evolve. It is too early to say with any degree of certainty that it will or won't achieve its promise. There is no question however to those that are involved in pushing Second Life's application, that a virtual platform like Second Life will have a multitude of uses in education, simulation and social networking. Yes it is early for it, but I think SL is hanging on and pushing the concept to the masses to attempt to spur the development along. I have worried recently that Linden Lab risk expanding their user base to a level they can't handle serving, but I'd rather have too much business than not enough so long as it doesnt ruin the future prospects with bad impressions.
And so much of the press from Linden Lab, including the 3 articles a day posted on Slashdot, ignore one use of Second Life that is extremely profitable (as many businesses in SL are, Bubble 2.0 or not). SEX. Virtual sex may be the holy grail of pornography. Second Life is already a platform for it and projects for networked sexual I/O hardware devices are already in the working model stage.
So really, just like the early World Wide Web: Second Life is clunky but shows signs of real promise. It's rife with overinflated business hype. And it always has sex to keep it afloat.
As far as the comparison to Paris Hilton: no Second Life is not the slutty ho-bag of MMORPGs. Wait! maybe it is . . . *logs into SL*
By around here you must mean in your personal circle. I also live in Oklahoma and there is no stigma surrounding video games. This bill is basically a result of our legislature doing what it pleases, with very poor press coverage of the event in the state and the average American political apathy. This is really more of a generational and religious issue. If this law were a referendum it is true that it surely would pass here, but similar bills would pass in many states if put to a vote.
And hypocracy aside this is really no big deal in principal. So you can't sell sexually explicit or overtly violent content to kids. So what? Sure the details might be laughable but so are most bills if you take time to read them.
All I have to say to the underagers is go get someone to buy it for you like you do your beer and cigarettes. *shrugs*
I believe people associate being human with dying because all humans do die. All life that we know of does. Being that we are life, and being alive (in the only way we currently know how to be) is part of the human experience, so is dying.
As for the way we die, that is irrelevant. There are an infinite amount of ways to die. Reaching a perceived state of immortality would absolutely be considered a superhuman feat as opposed to a human feat.
So think before you create a straw man argument and rip it to shreds under my post.
As for the article mentioning a plane more terrified of crashing than it's passengers. What if such a plane realized that it's chance of survival was increased by releasing excess cargo, such as let's say, human passengers. I imagine a plane shaking out passengers like a dog shaking off fleas.
The obvious answer to this is the 3 laws of robotics. But that brings up an even more imortant dilema.
Once a brain has been imported to computer hardware, would it then come under the 3 laws? For us to say that a brain translated into functioning software is still a human mind is a great leap.
Part of what makes a human a human is (un)fortunately our mortality is it not? To remove that, could we still be considered human?
I see this as the broadcast television industry attempting to prolong their outmoded form of linear content delivery. I don't want content delivered to me at a corporation's convenience. I want on-demand.
I think that by offering this service they are trying to keep people from remembering that they will simply be able to download any content whenever they want before too long. So I can't see a service like this having any legs at all.
It only cuts us the consumer and small aspiring creatives.
When all of the corporations finish merging into three major megaconglomerations (if they haven't already), they will own basically the collective works of mankind and will sell and trade those rights easily between them.
They have everything in the public domain already plus continuous rights or easy access to almost anything they helped publish in any medium in the last 3/4 of the Twentieth Century (read everything). So the only possible edge that could have cut them dulled some years ago.
We will still be able to be creative in the future. We will just need corporate permission to profit from it.
McCullagh is a troll whose ideas don't really deserve the effort of being/.ed.
It's a false dichotomy to say that we should either code or lobby. We can do both and many other things we may need to do besides.
The funny thing is that this article actually tells us not to be concerned with code. Legal code. Those representatives are programming our government for us. Anyone who tells me not to take part in that process is a fascist.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course books are and will be heavily pirated in whatever format they are placed in. As we move toward handheld computers as powerful as today's laptops, there will be no issue about how readable this or that format is. Users will find a good way to read them, then the books will be placed in that format and people will trade them like they do already today, just in greater numbers.
This is the transition that is happening with all media formats and its ridiculous on Slashdot to even ask the question "Will this happen?"
I am only worrying about whether the writers and editors will be able to get paid for their work. If the book industry tries to do like the music industry and continues to charge as much for their product as they did when they had to physically distribute it, then they will lose out on billions of dollars they could have made by correcting their prices and getting their money through selling more products. And they have to make this price correction early on. If they wait until everyone becomes insulted by their greed like the music industry did then people will not feel bad about cutting them out of their profits. Digital media has come to the point where the consumer now has the power in the relationship and if the industries don't recognize that then it will be at their own peril. I think many of those who pirate would have been happy to pay something small instead for a legal version.
It seems like the ideal endgame of all of these digital media transitions is for there to be direct payment to the artists who actually create the content. If I could go to my favorite bands' or favorite authors' websites and pay something small directly to get their content like 20 cents a song or 2 dollars a book then I would buy a lot more of these things for sure. I think that is the prize we should be keeping our eyes on - freeing the artists from these archaic business models and the huge piles of middlemen that want to continue to get paid from the artists' work. The current debate about piracy really frames this whole transition in the wrong way. It continues to assume that these media companies will have a place in the future of media distribution. For hugely collaborative works like movies, tv and video games, I think there will be a need for media companies to create the products. But media that can be created by small groups or single artists like music and books, there is no need anymore for this huge infrastructure to bring it to the public. That's the bottom line for them, they are soon obsolete and few will miss them. But I for one will always want to compensate artists I appreciate and I think that is a common feeling, so we really need to explore ways of doing that much more directly. If we can transition to this more direct relationship between audience and artist then I think the problem is solved and our culture as a whole will be better for it.
While I agree with the sentiment that games don't cause people to commit crimes, in the interest of understanding the actual data for comparison - I think that those numbers actually could be explained purely as reporting bias. Japan is a very private and very male-dominated culture, which is one reason why this sort of "entertainment" would be able to flourish there in the first place.
.etc).
In America "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" which is good. In Japan they say "the tall tree catches the wind" which is bad. It is a culture that discourages letting other people know your personal problems or standing out at all.
The degree of ridicule and shame that a girl would face in Japan after accusing a man of rape is very much larger than in the United States. So while you could be right, I don't think people should be so quick to underestimate the difference in culture. I think it could be realistic that a huge number of rapes go unreported in Japan and you also have to consider that the definition of rape between America and Japan could be much different (date rape, spousal rape .
Actually since the universe has already been created, it is not a thing for which chance can be calculated. It either was or was not created by your 7-foot tall bun-ghetti. We don't know and can't prove whether it was or not. But that does not imply odds. Chance is for the prediction of future events.
Sorry to seem pedantic about a +5 funny post, but I thought it was a distinction worth making.
I find it upsetting that we allow a computerized monitoring system to babysit our behavior anyway. As for the fact that it is surely being rigged in multiple places - that is just a sign that authorities have been given too much power over us in the first place. I believe in traffic safety, but I also believe in the freedom of not being monitored constantly.
I think that we should still be asking the question of whether these cameras should be allowed in the first place. By commenting whether the state, local or federal government should be allowed to get away with yellow light shortening tactics like this we're answering a loaded question that reinforces our acceptance that these cameras should be there at all.
Not unless they can actually create any item that they can imagine, script it themselves and then sell it to any of the active players for microcurrency that they can then cash out into real money. All without breaking any EULAs.
The "pirate your music, but support the band by seeing the show" argument falls down when you do the math. If you pirate ten CDs a week, that's ten concerts you need to see a week -- that gets to be expensive, and a time sink. Then, of course, that there's the reality that not all the artists whose music you pirate are going to be able to play when and where you want them to. In most cases, when we pirate music, our actual contribution to the artists' livelihood is nil, despite our best intentions.
Well first of all "pirating" 10 CDs a week sounds a little excessive. I would say for most people an average of two to five a month might keep them in new music, considering that they have other passtimes. And out of those let's say 5 CDs a month, many people would not have bought 2 or 3 of them if they had to pay from $15 - $20 per album. So if these "pirates" were keeping it legal then they would stick within a budget of say $60 a month on music. Of course all of this is assumption but I am attempting to be realistic while doing my math. These figures fit my personal spending/"pirating" habits.
So out of that $60 I wonder how much the artist would have received? The holier-than-thou anti-pirating nazis trying to exaggerate to make their point might say half or they might say that it gets the artist "closer to getting paid." Kind of like minimum wage gets someone closer to not being poor. I would say unless the album is a huge success the artists over time maybe will be receiving 5-10% of the sales price for the duration of an album. From what Ive read that might even be high.
So 10% of my $60 budget is $6. Over a year $72. So if I go to 3 or 4 concerts a year and buy a t-shirt or two Im probably making up for what I download. That is my math, different conclusion than yours.
And the kicker of all this is, that if the recording industry would sell their albums online for about 3-4 bucks a piece (which is 2 - 3 times the russian rates) they would get all of my downloading money as well and in fact maybe more because I wouldnt have to worry about keeping some of my balance back in case the Russian payment options go offline.
And thats not even going into the reasons I dont want to give the recording industry my money -- such as the awful radio cartel that inhibits musical diversity and locks out independent music or the fact that they have done their best to destroy internet radio, or the fact that they have sued so many regular people who just didnt want to subsidize their cartel. And they constantly rip off artists. And they would make the majority of listeners criminals if it would increase their control over our culture or make them a few extra bucks.
Even after all that I know about them I would download legally if they would offer them at a fair market price which I think is around $3-4 an album. And yes we do get to determine price. The fact that they cant come to grips with the market value of their product is the reason why so many are still opting to "pirate".
Better yet I would love to see some sort of co-op recording system funded by artists who have already made their wealth. New distribution systems (protect internet radio rights). I would love to see technology being used to make the artists money without the need for the middle men. Decentralized. That is what I most hope for. The recording industry sinking and its weasels drowning will only be the icing on that cake.
So when I do the math I use a little more than dollars to calculate. And until there is an acceptable morally clear choice about how to spend my music dollars I will certainly choose to get more for my money no matter where its found.
IF the courts were to recognize the value of virtual property as having the same rights as tangible property, it might help a tiny few people who would have been unfairly denied compensation from these virtual world software companies.
*And it would open the door wide open for taxation of virtual property.*
So if this court actually does get heard, the repercussions of it could be even greater than "clickwrap" reform.
From the summary:
But so far most of this action has been about first-life organizations trying to gain real-world publicity by their forays into SL
That sums up Coldwell Banker's move into SL as well.
. . . . 'A small number of land barons mostly control real estate in Second Life, and we thought we could bring real estate to the masses,' [a VP explained]."
Mainland real estate is the worst in the game and is already for the masses. It is hosted on the lowest class of servers (known as Class 3 compared to the latest Class 5) with more sims per server than "privately owned" Islands. Coldwell Banker is another stodgy corporation with no motive for being involved in virtual worlds other than trying to gain mindshare with the 18-35 demographic.
The whole financial concept of treating virtual space like real life land is flawed anyway. As metaverse-style systems evolve to become more distributed like the internet (an eventuality to which even Linden Labs concedes) these real-life style spatial limitations will seem silly. This market exists in this form only so long as Second Life is run exclusively on hardware controlled by Linden Lab. Linden Lab has already stated that at some point it intends on getting out of the hosting business and instead intends to license the SL server software. So as if a thinking person needed anyone to point this out, this land has no long term value (say 5 years). Coldwell Banker acting like they are taking SL land as a serious investment is all hyperbole. To them it is more like buying up Beanie Babies in the 90s and saying that " a small number of Beanie Baby barons control the Beanie Baby market and we thought we could bring Beanie Babies to the masses."
Gee thanks Coldwell Banker! My heroes!
Having taken part in the initial beta of the Second Life voice client starting two weeks ago, I can say that when voice capabilities come to SL they will certainly make it more useful to educational purposes. The system they are testing already works well and allows for 3D stereo sound. I realize that this alone does not make it perfect for education, but it does mean that it will not simply be a "glorified chat room" much longer.
I think attempting to bring learning systems to SL does have merit. The tools actually are shaping up and aside from the universities that are already in SL, I know of a few other educational offerings that are being developed now that could demonstrate value for educators and students.
I think that this type of immersive long-distance multiuser education is here to stay. Whether it will gain public acceptance during the platform life cycle of Second Life really depends on whether innovative educators keep coming into the virtual world prepared to push it forward. So if you are looking for a polished educational software platform to set up and get rolling quickly, then SL is not for you yet. On the other hand, if you want to be a pioneer and expand your thinking on how virtual worlds can fascilitate education then you should invest a little funding in SL and see what you can make of it.
I work in Second Life. So I don't feel the need to be a troll and bash anything about it to tell the truth. Slashdot is running too many stories about Second Life. These stories get about 50 replies at most and are usually no more than rehashed press releases like this one or obvious attempts to drum up interest in a Second Life. Slashdot readers have shown through lack of comments that they are not interested in this many stories about this subject. Not to mention it is overexposing a young platform and even creating a bit of backlash against it. This backlash is the fault of an overzealous PR machine at Linden Lab more than anything.
I think it would be nice to cool down this campaign and let something that is actually groundbreaking happen before posting another Second Life story. I love SL but all of these stories make even me see it as overhyped BS.
Im currently working as Art Director/Builder on what from my knowledge is the most ambitious project on the Second Life platform to date. I have always been a huge skeptic when it comes to much of the hype about SL. It is just beginning to show signs of being what it promotes itself as.
Decentralized education and social networking are its two main potentials right now so far as sustainable business models are concerned. The platform is still clunkier than serious investors in its uses would prefer, but it continues to evolve. It is too early to say with any degree of certainty that it will or won't achieve its promise. There is no question however to those that are involved in pushing Second Life's application, that a virtual platform like Second Life will have a multitude of uses in education, simulation and social networking. Yes it is early for it, but I think SL is hanging on and pushing the concept to the masses to attempt to spur the development along. I have worried recently that Linden Lab risk expanding their user base to a level they can't handle serving, but I'd rather have too much business than not enough so long as it doesnt ruin the future prospects with bad impressions.
And so much of the press from Linden Lab, including the 3 articles a day posted on Slashdot, ignore one use of Second Life that is extremely profitable (as many businesses in SL are, Bubble 2.0 or not). SEX. Virtual sex may be the holy grail of pornography. Second Life is already a platform for it and projects for networked sexual I/O hardware devices are already in the working model stage.
So really, just like the early World Wide Web: Second Life is clunky but shows signs of real promise. It's rife with overinflated business hype. And it always has sex to keep it afloat.
As far as the comparison to Paris Hilton: no Second Life is not the slutty ho-bag of MMORPGs. Wait! maybe it is . . . *logs into SL*
By around here you must mean in your personal circle. I also live in Oklahoma and there is no stigma surrounding video games. This bill is basically a result of our legislature doing what it pleases, with very poor press coverage of the event in the state and the average American political apathy. This is really more of a generational and religious issue. If this law were a referendum it is true that it surely would pass here, but similar bills would pass in many states if put to a vote.
And hypocracy aside this is really no big deal in principal. So you can't sell sexually explicit or overtly violent content to kids. So what? Sure the details might be laughable but so are most bills if you take time to read them. All I have to say to the underagers is go get someone to buy it for you like you do your beer and cigarettes. *shrugs*
One good fart could ruin the Superbowl for millions of viewers!
I believe people associate being human with dying because all humans do die. All life that we know of does. Being that we are life, and being alive (in the only way we currently know how to be) is part of the human experience, so is dying. As for the way we die, that is irrelevant. There are an infinite amount of ways to die. Reaching a perceived state of immortality would absolutely be considered a superhuman feat as opposed to a human feat. So think before you create a straw man argument and rip it to shreds under my post.
As for the article mentioning a plane more terrified of crashing than it's passengers. What if such a plane realized that it's chance of survival was increased by releasing excess cargo, such as let's say, human passengers. I imagine a plane shaking out passengers like a dog shaking off fleas. The obvious answer to this is the 3 laws of robotics. But that brings up an even more imortant dilema. Once a brain has been imported to computer hardware, would it then come under the 3 laws? For us to say that a brain translated into functioning software is still a human mind is a great leap. Part of what makes a human a human is (un)fortunately our mortality is it not? To remove that, could we still be considered human?
I see this as the broadcast television industry attempting to prolong their outmoded form of linear content delivery. I don't want content delivered to me at a corporation's convenience. I want on-demand. I think that by offering this service they are trying to keep people from remembering that they will simply be able to download any content whenever they want before too long. So I can't see a service like this having any legs at all.
It only cuts us the consumer and small aspiring creatives.
When all of the corporations finish merging into three major megaconglomerations (if they haven't already), they will own basically the collective works of mankind and will sell and trade those rights easily between them. They have everything in the public domain already plus continuous rights or easy access to almost anything they helped publish in any medium in the last 3/4 of the Twentieth Century (read everything). So the only possible edge that could have cut them dulled some years ago. We will still be able to be creative in the future. We will just need corporate permission to profit from it.
McCullagh is a troll whose ideas don't really deserve the effort of being /.ed.
It's a false dichotomy to say that we should either code or lobby. We can do both and many other things we may need to do besides.
The funny thing is that this article actually tells us not to be concerned with code. Legal code. Those representatives are programming our government for us. Anyone who tells me not to take part in that process is a fascist.
I read somewhere that they are also searching for and reassembling Lang's original stuffed monkey.