I strongly believe/hope we are not the only life in the universe, in fact I believe the answer the Fermi Paradox is that the Earth has a big "Do Not Touch" sign on it because we have been deemed too dangerous to include in "Universal" citizenship.
"Shifting? SHIFTING? This has been the case for the last 20+ years!"
Try ~200 years!
The Democrats claim to be the party of Jefferson, if Jefferson where still alive he would sue them for defamation of character. One of the key hallmarks of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party was small government, today's Democrat's don't even know how to spell that.
Of course Lincoln's Republican party tried to capitalize on the Jefferson Republican name, but from the very beginning not only violated the small government creed, but decimated State's Rights.
You are absolutely correct, both parties believe in a large, powerful central government and that the State's have no rights.
You mean like since Lincoln? Oh wait, that was the "birth" of the current Republican party (not to be confused with Jeffersonian Republican's, who actually where for small government)
Lincoln Republican's are just left over Whigs, who were left over Federalists, and we all know what they stood for, just read a little about Mr. Hamilton's beliefs, if you aren't familiar.
At best, current Republican's are just for smaller government in comparison to nanny-state Democrats, which isn't saying much.
"But the societal and economic changes of the last 40 years have probably had a much larger impact. These include more women working outside the home, lower real wages, larger amounts of income spent on housing, transportation, and energy, etc. It means that most parents today have a lot less time to spend with their children, and a lot fewer resources to spend on extracurricular activities or private education."
So... No one ever claimed that raising children didn't come without sacrifices. My wife and I both worked, yet we still made sure there was time and resources for our children's needs (educational and otherwise), which caused us to sacrifice a lot, we aren't rich by any stretch of the imagination. Is life harder then when our parents raised us or their parents raised them, maybe. Every generation has it's own set of challenges it has to deal with and I certainly wouldn't make a "simplistic" assumption that raising children today is harder than it was in a previous generation.
I also wouldn't be making "ridiculous generalizations" that I only interact with a certain type of person. My wife and I were both public school educated and in general believe that everyone deserves a chance at an education. We live in a good community and the public school system has been in the top 5 in the state forever. We had our oldest two children in public school for a number of years, but found that while the teachers were good, and seemed to care, the level of education wasn't where we thought it should be. We found, that as with any classroom setting, the teacher can really only go as fast as the slowest students, and what we found was that the slowest students tended to be those that also had very little parental involvement. This is not a social/economic issue by any means, because to a certain extent this was true in private school as well, but to a much lesser extent.
"By that reasoning, if you do manage to get parents to start caring they'll just pull their students out of the public schools in favor of more responsible/personal educational institutions (private schools and home schooling). Since the first ones to react will probably be those that cared the most to start with, the end effect is that you're now left with a public-school student population whose parents, on average, care even less than before."
I would argue that largely this has already happened. From all appearances, the children left in the public school system are the ones that lack parental influence in their educational lives. So definitely throwing more tax payer money at already over-funded daycare system isn't going to solve anything.
Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to fix it.
The real problem with public education is that it has become the dumping ground for kids whose parents don't care and can't take the time to be engaged in their children's lives. Parents that care, do whatever they can to send their children to a private school or home school them. The public school system is full of kids who have no positive educational influence at home and are just a negative influence on kids that are trying to learn. Until you can get the majority of public school parents to care about their children's education and become a "champion" in their lives for an education, the system won't change and will continue to go down hill.
In my experience it is more the illusion and feeling of security of having someone to hold liable. C-levels want to feel good about there being someone, with real assets, at the other end of the product, regardless if they ever sue them. Unfortunately most C-levels are "old school" and where cultivated in cultures where "no one got fired for buying IBM (or Microsoft)", hopefully this will change as these dinosaurs retire, and younger/fresher ideas start to permeate the corporate board rooms.
The other problem at the C-level is the politics get ratcheted up to the highest level and any little FU will be used by your opposition to force you out. So stepping outside the "norm", could be career suicide.
Maybe Lisp can finally get a foot hold... Of course since women are also better at writing and grammar, they might question why they have to use so many parenthesis.
"One of the worst things about the last 7 years of US government has been the destruction of rational debate"
Either your young or haven't been paying very close attention. The US government rarely deals in facts, regardless which party is controlling the spin. Facts just get in the way of intended policy. You should read: "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" for plenty of examples of how the US Government has ignored the facts and used opinion to inflict significant damage throughout the world.
"Then Fort Wayne Community Schools for first grade through 12th should really reevaluate their priorities, IYHO"
I agree they should. What exactly are they listening to on those buses? As a parent I may not like what they are letting my children listen to. As a parent I have a responsibility to let school board officials know my displeasure with their policy. What should happen if during the next national emergency an announcer breaks in during the music to inform everyone of the events, and now you have 20+ panicked children because their parents work in the area that was affected? Radios on school buses are a bad idea.
"And what should people in a grocery store do?"
If you don't like the music they play at your grocery store, don't go there, or ask them to change it. Honestly I can't say as I pay much attention to music in any store, most of it is just mind numbing Muzak crap, and it certainly doesn't influence my musical tastes or offend me. I have only left one store because of music, and that was because it was WAY to loud, not because it was generic techno drivel.
You can find all sorts of examples where you have no choice about the music that is playing, but life always has options and some times that is as simple as walking back out the door or switching the station.
The point of my original post was that due to forces outside of their control the RIAA members are loosing their music monopoly, and their "scared". Their behavior and that of MS are similar, both are confronted with a low cost alternative to their product and they are having a tough time competing with it, so they threaten lawsuits and spread all sorts of FUD, all because they are "scared" of loosing their monopoly.
As I said in my original post I agree that historically free markets tend to allow monopolies to exist, but we are witnessing examples where two monopolies are struggling to compete with low cost alternatives to their offerings. Under normal market circumstances a low cost alternative would be no problem for a monopoly to crush, but because the barrier to entry into these markets has lowered so much the monopolies are left virtually powerless.
"But how can non-RIAA recording artists promote their works to people in a moving car, bus, or train?"
There are still independent radio stations that will play anything, and even some corporate owned stations play local music. I also never said that new artists ONLY distribute through the Internet, I only said it makes it cheaper. Once you have a master recording, getting CD's pressed is dirt cheap, and most large towns have non-chain retail stores that will put your music in their racks, for a reasonable fee.
"In many school districts, even high school students are forbidden to carry an MP3 player on the school bus."
So, that just levels the playing field, if I can't listen to an MP3 player, then I can't listen to RIAA music either. School districts that put radios or them to be used in their buses should really reevaluate their priorities, IMHO.
Of course the RIAA isn't going to make it easy for you to find alternatives, remember they have had a monopoly on this for a long time and have a lot of bases covered, but suffice to say alternatives do exist (and multiplying), and are far superior to anything the RIAA spoon feeds the masses.
"Monopolies are the "natural" mature state of markets because some asshat sees the opportunity in doing things like, owning the entire supply of some good or coordinating prices and supply with their nearest competitors, or legislating barriers to market."
While I agree that markets want to naturally move toward monopolies, the Internet and technology have derailed the RIAA's attempts.
Due to cheaper recording and production costs the RIAA doesn't have nearly the monopoly they did 20 years ago. There are many more non-RIAA members producing high quality music and using the Internet to distribute what they produce at a reasonable cost. With the cost of hardware dropping and the quality of home studio software rising, more and more acts have taken to doing everything themselves, or finding cheap local alternatives to RIAA members. It is only the no talent "Britney's", "Idol's" and "Boy bands" that need the RIAA to make them successful.
If anything the actions of the RIAA resemble a monopoly that is desperately trying anything it can to hold on to it's once powerful position.
I agree ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, but there is always a certain amount of discretion about charging someone with a crime, which I believe is what the GPP was trying to say. For instance, speeding is a crime but many people get off with a warning (I never seem too, but my wife does all the time;).
"I want to get away from Windows, maybe I should try a Mac now?"
I would, and have.
I purchased my last Windows PC two years ago and haven't looked back. My day job is programming for and administering Linux servers and they excel at that job, but using Linux (or Windows for that matter) on the desktop is too much work. When I go home in the evening the very last thing I want to do is sit down and figure out why my desktop machine is screwed again, with OS X I don't have those problems, it just works.
You think the hardware vendors are waiting around? They are already dreaming of 128-bit CPU's.
In 7-8 years when/if Vista's successor is ready the hardware vendors will already have had 128-bit CPU's on the market for at least a year, and convinced everyone that they need one.
I agree with most of what you said, I just disagree with your approach to solving the problem. I feel that being a criminal, i.e. breaking copyright, and then pointing the finger saying I did it because the system is broken and needs fixed is a much weaker position then trying to work, legally to change the system.
The US government is setup by the people, for the people, which means our representatives are supposed to be doing what we want/tell them to do, not who pays them the most money to do what they want. It is far past time for the American people to wake up from the apathetic daze that the politicians and their business masters have put them in and take THEIR government back. Copyright is just one of a long list of offenses the US government has pushed on the rest of the world in the name of the American people, many of these with life threaten results.
In the end I believe our goals are the same, we just have different ways of fighting the war, and both are daunting tasks. Your approach requires mass amounts of the major labels current customers to start getting their Britney for free, the numbers don't tell a very good story there, considering the majors are still racking in the cash, so quite a few people are still buying. Mine is to wake up a dormant society that cares more about about who the "next idol" is then what their government is doing in their name.
Revolutions are tough things to get off the ground...;)
"You realize that under contract law, you are not allowed to do that, right? You can't change the original contract without the consent of both parties? Of course, on the other hand, the democractically elected representatives of the people should have the authority to agree to to those changes"
I do realize this and you said it yourself OUR elected officials are acting in OUR behave to renegotiate the contract, so both parties are present and consenting (if the bill passes, which I HIGHLY doubt). If you don't like how your representative is representing you let them know, stop electing the same old RepubliCrats to office, tear the entire system down, believe me I would love to see the American public rise up and take their country back, but I seriously doubt it will happen, at least in my lifetime.
"That does not change the fact that the listeners are using the music without paying for it,"
Did you miss the part about the RIAA collecting a fee from radio stations for exactly this use? That's what the radio stations pay a fee for, so their listeners can listen to the music they play.
"People aren't loosing faith because there is one thing that is priced too high, they are loosing faith because everything is priced too high. There are oligarchar price controls being used to extract monopoly rents from CDs and DVDs, prices remaining consistently high despite the ability to reproduce them dropping to a point that's near 0"
How does any of that give someone the right to take a product and use it without giving the producer the compensation they request? The point is they produced it, they can charge whatever the want for it, just because you feel it isn't worth that, doesn't make it right for you to use it anyway. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy or want the crap they produce.
"For example, for decades the RIAA and it's member companies have been working to reduce the variety of music offered to their customers through consolidation and payola deals."
Agreed and this hasn't worked and they don't get it, I'm not arguing that the RIAA and the major labels aren't stupid, all their tactics have done is create a wider range of available music. There is more indie music available today then there ever has been, and with the Internet the distribution is cheaper and easier as well. For all the efforts the industry has tried to suppress technology it hasn't worked. It is stupidly simple and inexpensive to setup a home recording studio and produce your own high quality music and distribute it through the Internet for a reasonable price. The prices I pay for music today have gone down drastically from what I paid 20 years ago.
"So their tactics are hurting you as both producer and consumer"
As a producer of low priced work, it's unlikely the people that pirate my stuff are driven to do so by the RIAA's tactics, as you stated it's more likely they are just people that break the rules regardless. As a consumer I am not impacted at all by the RIAA because I don't consume any of the crap they produce.
I agree that the contract was negotiated in bad faith, which is a problem with the US government in general and certainly a bigger topic then just this. All I can say is do what you can to take our government back from the people that currently control it. Throwing the same RepubliCrats in office time after time doesn't work, they are all cut from the same cloth and report to the same masters, and they aren't us.
Your analogies are flawed though, because in order for me to enter into a copyright contract I have to agree to the price the producer is asking for his product, if I don't there is no contract between the producer and me. If I willfully go around the contract and use his product anyway then I have have broken the law and should be punished.
"If *YOU* as a content creator don't like the current situation, STOP CREATING CONTENT! Then I can't pirate it, can I? Simple! But see, the big companies won't do that. They don't want to stop - they want to force me to buy."
I don't sense that the content providers have any problem with the current situation, they just want stiffer penalties for breaking the contract. They still make plenty of money off the crap they produce, they are just doing what they can to maximize their profits, exactly what every business should do.
I also don't see anyone being forced to buy their crap, it's still a free country, people aren't being lined up and forced to buy the next Britney CD. I haven't purchased a mainstream CD (I don't watch much TV or movies so I don't own any DVD's) in over 20 years. There is no reason to with the indie music scene being so large, diverse and not controlled by the major labels. The prices are reasonable and the music is much better than anything produced by big media.
"It was never about what's "right" and what's "wrong". It's not about what's best for the artist, and it's especially not about what's best for the consumer"
Breaking copyright is wrong, it's a law. I never said the artists or consumers where getting a fair shake from big media, they absolutely are not, but both have a choice not to go with big media. Absolutely no one is being forced to sign a contract with big media or buy products produced by them.
"It's about making as much money as is humanly possible with as little investment as possible - and that's all."
Gee, that's what I try to do every day of my life, and that's what I expect of the companies that I invest in (which aren't the major media companies, BTW).
"On the other hand, maybe you could just create because you want your work to be enjoyed, and I'll pay you money if I enjoy it to encourage you to make more. That's really how it was supposed to work in the first place after all."
That certainly was never the intent of copyright, if that's what your implying. What would be reasonable copyright to you? Copyright is about granting a monopoly on a given work for some time period, and that is what we currently have. You can argue that the term is too long or the penalties to severe, but neither of those constitutes a valid reason for breaking copyright. Essentially copyright gives the producer the exclusive right to do whatever he wishes with his work for the term of the copyright, which would include producing crap and charging an unreasonable price.
If you don't like copyright I encourage you to work to change it, not willfully break the law and hope that big business gets the message, I can guarantee you the message they receive won't be the one you intended.
"Actually it does matter, the whole "using a product without paying for it" isn't actually a law, you know"
It's a contract, and there are penalties for breaking contracts, the point of the original article and the bill in front of Congress is upping the penalties for breaking copyright (the contract).
"The way you view the world, the RIAA would be entitled to collect money from every person who listened to a radio station"
You realize that the RIAA already does collect fees from the radio stations for playing their music? So the radio station takes care of that RIAA usage fee.
"It's respected because it's in the best interest of everyone. However, increasingly people are deciding that is no longer in their best interests."
My point is if you don't agree with the contract don't enter into it, i.e. don't use their product. Don't knowing go and break the contract and then try to use some lame excuse about them charging an unrealistic price for their product, the price is what the producer says it is.
"Once one side of a contract has breached it, the other side is no longer bound by the terms of the agreement"
While I agree with this, it still doesn't mean that "other side" can't go and seek any and all penalities for breaking the contract.
"Right now, the content corporations are trying to convince the world's governments that their customers broke the agreement first,"
And their right, the consumer did break the contract first, the consumers are infringing on their copyrights, and not paying the producers what they feel their products are worth. The argument that they charge too much and hence they broke the contract first doesn't work, because it's their product and they can charge whatever they want for it.
As I mentioned previously I am a producer and ask for payment for my products. I know my products are pirated and it irritates me that people refuse to even pay the modest sums I ask for my copyrighted work, but the vast majority of people do pay and in the end that is good enough for me. Obviously the RIAA feels differently and that the infringement of their products is a problem, and it is their right (not as in Constitutionally granted) under copyright to pursue penalties for the infringements.
BTW I don't agree with the RIAA's tactic's and personally don't use any of their products, the music I consume all comes from indie labels.
"The producer hasn't received those monies and has no guarantee of receiving those moneys"
Are you trying to imply that someone that uses a pirated product may not have purchased it anyway? That really isn't relevant, the point is that you are using a producers product without paying for it. It doesn't matter if you ever would have purchased it, you are using someones product that they charge a fee for and you didn't pay the fee, that's wrong.
"Copyright is an artifical restriction that is bound in the good faith agreement between consumers and producers that the producers will charge reasonable prices and consumers will pay them."
My contention is that consumers aren't living up to their end of that agreement. Instead of simply refusing to pay the high prices for the goods produced, they go out and find them for free. This behavior only supports the producers arguments about all of the "criminals" out there stealing their product. If you don't like the price a product is offered at don't buy it, and don't use it for for free.
I live on both sides as well, I produce music and software, and I consume a fair amount of both, but if I don't agree with the price that a producer is trying to sell their product for I don't try and pirate it, I simply find an alternative.
I will agree that copyright duration is currently too long (thank you Disney, etc), but the basic concept of copyright is fair.
"The producer of the product has just as much product as before the piracy occurs. They can still sell that to other people, unlike actual theft, where the producer is deprived of a product that they can sell to others. "
But you are neglecting the fact that you are using their product without paying for it, it is irrelevant that you haven't decreased their amount of the original. It doesn't matter if they would have purchased the product or not, the fact is they are using the producers product without paying for it, that's wrong.
You absolutely have, you have deprived the producer of the product the price they charge.
People have developed bad attitudes toward copyright. They feel that just because a producer of material charges too much, they should be able to get a copy for free and use it. They also feel that somehow this sends a message to the producer that they are charging too much, funny thing though, that message didn't quite get received clearly, the producers see it as wide spread "stealing" of their material. If instead these same people had refused to use (legally or illegally) the high priced material and either did without or found cheaper alternatives, the message MIGHT have been received differently, at the very least it would provide a "higher" ground to complain from. Complaining that something is too expensive, while using that same something illegally, doesn't put you in very high standing.
I agree jail time is not the answer, for reasons (prison over population, etc) beyond the punishment doesn't fit the crime, but some sort of stiff fine (2x seems rather lite) and more rigorous enforcement. Start giving these people criminal convictions (no jail time) and stiff fines and see if their attitudes get adjusted. Fines hurt, but having a criminal record dog you for the rest of your life is a lot worse.
Slashdot Mirror
I strongly believe/hope we are not the only life in the universe, in fact I believe the answer the Fermi Paradox is that the Earth has a big "Do Not Touch" sign on it because we have been deemed too dangerous to include in "Universal" citizenship.
What makes you so sure the human race shouldn't go extinct?
Humans are the most destructive, dangerous species to themselves and every other species on the planet, IMO, we deserve to die out!
To paraphrase the late George Carlin:
The Earth will be fine, it just has a cold, once it's "immune system" purges the "human" infection, the earth will heal itself.
"Shifting? SHIFTING? This has been the case for the last 20+ years!"
Try ~200 years!
The Democrats claim to be the party of Jefferson, if Jefferson where still alive he would sue them for defamation of character. One of the key hallmarks of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican party was small government, today's Democrat's don't even know how to spell that.
Of course Lincoln's Republican party tried to capitalize on the Jefferson Republican name, but from the very beginning not only violated the small government creed, but decimated State's Rights.
You are absolutely correct, both parties believe in a large, powerful central government and that the State's have no rights.
You mean like since Lincoln? Oh wait, that was the "birth" of the current Republican party (not to be confused with Jeffersonian Republican's, who actually where for small government)
Lincoln Republican's are just left over Whigs, who were left over Federalists, and we all know what they stood for, just read a little about Mr. Hamilton's beliefs, if you aren't familiar.
At best, current Republican's are just for smaller government in comparison to nanny-state Democrats, which isn't saying much.
"But the societal and economic changes of the last 40 years have probably had a much larger impact. These include more women working outside the home, lower real wages, larger amounts of income spent on housing, transportation, and energy, etc. It means that most parents today have a lot less time to spend with their children, and a lot fewer resources to spend on extracurricular activities or private education."
So... No one ever claimed that raising children didn't come without sacrifices. My wife and I both worked, yet we still made sure there was time and resources for our children's needs (educational and otherwise), which caused us to sacrifice a lot, we aren't rich by any stretch of the imagination. Is life harder then when our parents raised us or their parents raised them, maybe. Every generation has it's own set of challenges it has to deal with and I certainly wouldn't make a "simplistic" assumption that raising children today is harder than it was in a previous generation.
I also wouldn't be making "ridiculous generalizations" that I only interact with a certain type of person. My wife and I were both public school educated and in general believe that everyone deserves a chance at an education. We live in a good community and the public school system has been in the top 5 in the state forever. We had our oldest two children in public school for a number of years, but found that while the teachers were good, and seemed to care, the level of education wasn't where we thought it should be. We found, that as with any classroom setting, the teacher can really only go as fast as the slowest students, and what we found was that the slowest students tended to be those that also had very little parental involvement. This is not a social/economic issue by any means, because to a certain extent this was true in private school as well, but to a much lesser extent.
"By that reasoning, if you do manage to get parents to start caring they'll just pull their students out of the public schools in favor of more responsible/personal educational institutions (private schools and home schooling). Since the first ones to react will probably be those that cared the most to start with, the end effect is that you're now left with a public-school student population whose parents, on average, care even less than before."
I would argue that largely this has already happened. From all appearances, the children left in the public school system are the ones that lack parental influence in their educational lives. So definitely throwing more tax payer money at already over-funded daycare system isn't going to solve anything.
Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to fix it.
The real problem with public education is that it has become the dumping ground for kids whose parents don't care and can't take the time to be engaged in their children's lives. Parents that care, do whatever they can to send their children to a private school or home school them. The public school system is full of kids who have no positive educational influence at home and are just a negative influence on kids that are trying to learn. Until you can get the majority of public school parents to care about their children's education and become a "champion" in their lives for an education, the system won't change and will continue to go down hill.
In my experience it is more the illusion and feeling of security of having someone to hold liable. C-levels want to feel good about there being someone, with real assets, at the other end of the product, regardless if they ever sue them. Unfortunately most C-levels are "old school" and where cultivated in cultures where "no one got fired for buying IBM (or Microsoft)", hopefully this will change as these dinosaurs retire, and younger/fresher ideas start to permeate the corporate board rooms.
The other problem at the C-level is the politics get ratcheted up to the highest level and any little FU will be used by your opposition to force you out. So stepping outside the "norm", could be career suicide.
"while women tend to think in circular patterns."
Maybe Lisp can finally get a foot hold... Of course since women are also better at writing and grammar, they might question why they have to use so many parenthesis.
"One of the worst things about the last 7 years of US government has been the destruction of rational debate"
Either your young or haven't been paying very close attention. The US government rarely deals in facts, regardless which party is controlling the spin. Facts just get in the way of intended policy. You should read: "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" for plenty of examples of how the US Government has ignored the facts and used opinion to inflict significant damage throughout the world.
"Then Fort Wayne Community Schools for first grade through 12th should really reevaluate their priorities, IYHO"
I agree they should. What exactly are they listening to on those buses? As a parent I may not like what they are letting my children listen to. As a parent I have a responsibility to let school board officials know my displeasure with their policy. What should happen if during the next national emergency an announcer breaks in during the music to inform everyone of the events, and now you have 20+ panicked children because their parents work in the area that was affected? Radios on school buses are a bad idea.
"And what should people in a grocery store do?"
If you don't like the music they play at your grocery store, don't go there, or ask them to change it. Honestly I can't say as I pay much attention to music in any store, most of it is just mind numbing Muzak crap, and it certainly doesn't influence my musical tastes or offend me. I have only left one store because of music, and that was because it was WAY to loud, not because it was generic techno drivel.
You can find all sorts of examples where you have no choice about the music that is playing, but life always has options and some times that is as simple as walking back out the door or switching the station.
The point of my original post was that due to forces outside of their control the RIAA members are loosing their music monopoly, and their "scared". Their behavior and that of MS are similar, both are confronted with a low cost alternative to their product and they are having a tough time competing with it, so they threaten lawsuits and spread all sorts of FUD, all because they are "scared" of loosing their monopoly.
As I said in my original post I agree that historically free markets tend to allow monopolies to exist, but we are witnessing examples where two monopolies are struggling to compete with low cost alternatives to their offerings. Under normal market circumstances a low cost alternative would be no problem for a monopoly to crush, but because the barrier to entry into these markets has lowered so much the monopolies are left virtually powerless.
"But how can non-RIAA recording artists promote their works to people in a moving car, bus, or train?"
There are still independent radio stations that will play anything, and even some corporate owned stations play local music. I also never said that new artists ONLY distribute through the Internet, I only said it makes it cheaper. Once you have a master recording, getting CD's pressed is dirt cheap, and most large towns have non-chain retail stores that will put your music in their racks, for a reasonable fee.
"In many school districts, even high school students are forbidden to carry an MP3 player on the school bus."
So, that just levels the playing field, if I can't listen to an MP3 player, then I can't listen to RIAA music either. School districts that put radios or them to be used in their buses should really reevaluate their priorities, IMHO.
Of course the RIAA isn't going to make it easy for you to find alternatives, remember they have had a monopoly on this for a long time and have a lot of bases covered, but suffice to say alternatives do exist (and multiplying), and are far superior to anything the RIAA spoon feeds the masses.
"Monopolies are the "natural" mature state of markets because some asshat sees the opportunity in doing things like, owning the entire supply of some good or coordinating prices and supply with their nearest competitors, or legislating barriers to market."
While I agree that markets want to naturally move toward monopolies, the Internet and technology have derailed the RIAA's attempts.
Due to cheaper recording and production costs the RIAA doesn't have nearly the monopoly they did 20 years ago. There are many more non-RIAA members producing high quality music and using the Internet to distribute what they produce at a reasonable cost. With the cost of hardware dropping and the quality of home studio software rising, more and more acts have taken to doing everything themselves, or finding cheap local alternatives to RIAA members. It is only the no talent "Britney's", "Idol's" and "Boy bands" that need the RIAA to make them successful.
If anything the actions of the RIAA resemble a monopoly that is desperately trying anything it can to hold on to it's once powerful position.
I agree ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, but there is always a certain amount of discretion about charging someone with a crime, which I believe is what the GPP was trying to say. For instance, speeding is a crime but many people get off with a warning (I never seem too, but my wife does all the time ;).
"I want to get away from Windows, maybe I should try a Mac now?"
I would, and have.
I purchased my last Windows PC two years ago and haven't looked back. My day job is programming for and administering Linux servers and they excel at that job, but using Linux (or Windows for that matter) on the desktop is too much work. When I go home in the evening the very last thing I want to do is sit down and figure out why my desktop machine is screwed again, with OS X I don't have those problems, it just works.
Sorry, it would seem by the responses (and the mods) that my sarcasm didn't come through very well...
I'm still pretty happy with 640K of memory, I am having trouble getting this "Windows" program to load though...
Dream on!
You think the hardware vendors are waiting around? They are already dreaming of 128-bit CPU's.
In 7-8 years when/if Vista's successor is ready the hardware vendors will already have had 128-bit CPU's on the market for at least a year, and convinced everyone that they need one.
I agree with most of what you said, I just disagree with your approach to solving the problem. I feel that being a criminal, i.e. breaking copyright, and then pointing the finger saying I did it because the system is broken and needs fixed is a much weaker position then trying to work, legally to change the system.
;)
The US government is setup by the people, for the people, which means our representatives are supposed to be doing what we want/tell them to do, not who pays them the most money to do what they want. It is far past time for the American people to wake up from the apathetic daze that the politicians and their business masters have put them in and take THEIR government back. Copyright is just one of a long list of offenses the US government has pushed on the rest of the world in the name of the American people, many of these with life threaten results.
In the end I believe our goals are the same, we just have different ways of fighting the war, and both are daunting tasks. Your approach requires mass amounts of the major labels current customers to start getting their Britney for free, the numbers don't tell a very good story there, considering the majors are still racking in the cash, so quite a few people are still buying. Mine is to wake up a dormant society that cares more about about who the "next idol" is then what their government is doing in their name.
Revolutions are tough things to get off the ground...
"You realize that under contract law, you are not allowed to do that, right? You can't change the original contract without the consent of both parties? Of course, on the other hand, the democractically elected representatives of the people should have the authority to agree to to those changes"
I do realize this and you said it yourself OUR elected officials are acting in OUR behave to renegotiate the contract, so both parties are present and consenting (if the bill passes, which I HIGHLY doubt). If you don't like how your representative is representing you let them know, stop electing the same old RepubliCrats to office, tear the entire system down, believe me I would love to see the American public rise up and take their country back, but I seriously doubt it will happen, at least in my lifetime.
"That does not change the fact that the listeners are using the music without paying for it,"
Did you miss the part about the RIAA collecting a fee from radio stations for exactly this use? That's what the radio stations pay a fee for, so their listeners can listen to the music they play.
"People aren't loosing faith because there is one thing that is priced too high, they are loosing faith because everything is priced too high. There are oligarchar price controls being used to extract monopoly rents from CDs and DVDs, prices remaining consistently high despite the ability to reproduce them dropping to a point that's near 0"
How does any of that give someone the right to take a product and use it without giving the producer the compensation they request? The point is they produced it, they can charge whatever the want for it, just because you feel it isn't worth that, doesn't make it right for you to use it anyway. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy or want the crap they produce.
"For example, for decades the RIAA and it's member companies have been working to reduce the variety of music offered to their customers through consolidation and payola deals."
Agreed and this hasn't worked and they don't get it, I'm not arguing that the RIAA and the major labels aren't stupid, all their tactics have done is create a wider range of available music. There is more indie music available today then there ever has been, and with the Internet the distribution is cheaper and easier as well. For all the efforts the industry has tried to suppress technology it hasn't worked. It is stupidly simple and inexpensive to setup a home recording studio and produce your own high quality music and distribute it through the Internet for a reasonable price. The prices I pay for music today have gone down drastically from what I paid 20 years ago.
"So their tactics are hurting you as both producer and consumer"
As a producer of low priced work, it's unlikely the people that pirate my stuff are driven to do so by the RIAA's tactics, as you stated it's more likely they are just people that break the rules regardless. As a consumer I am not impacted at all by the RIAA because I don't consume any of the crap they produce.
I agree that the contract was negotiated in bad faith, which is a problem with the US government in general and certainly a bigger topic then just this. All I can say is do what you can to take our government back from the people that currently control it. Throwing the same RepubliCrats in office time after time doesn't work, they are all cut from the same cloth and report to the same masters, and they aren't us.
Your analogies are flawed though, because in order for me to enter into a copyright contract I have to agree to the price the producer is asking for his product, if I don't there is no contract between the producer and me. If I willfully go around the contract and use his product anyway then I have have broken the law and should be punished.
"If *YOU* as a content creator don't like the current situation, STOP CREATING CONTENT! Then I can't pirate it, can I? Simple! But see, the big companies won't do that. They don't want to stop - they want to force me to buy."
I don't sense that the content providers have any problem with the current situation, they just want stiffer penalties for breaking the contract. They still make plenty of money off the crap they produce, they are just doing what they can to maximize their profits, exactly what every business should do.
I also don't see anyone being forced to buy their crap, it's still a free country, people aren't being lined up and forced to buy the next Britney CD. I haven't purchased a mainstream CD (I don't watch much TV or movies so I don't own any DVD's) in over 20 years. There is no reason to with the indie music scene being so large, diverse and not controlled by the major labels. The prices are reasonable and the music is much better than anything produced by big media.
"It was never about what's "right" and what's "wrong". It's not about what's best for the artist, and it's especially not about what's best for the consumer"
Breaking copyright is wrong, it's a law. I never said the artists or consumers where getting a fair shake from big media, they absolutely are not, but both have a choice not to go with big media. Absolutely no one is being forced to sign a contract with big media or buy products produced by them.
"It's about making as much money as is humanly possible with as little investment as possible - and that's all."
Gee, that's what I try to do every day of my life, and that's what I expect of the companies that I invest in (which aren't the major media companies, BTW).
"On the other hand, maybe you could just create because you want your work to be enjoyed, and I'll pay you money if I enjoy it to encourage you to make more. That's really how it was supposed to work in the first place after all."
That certainly was never the intent of copyright, if that's what your implying. What would be reasonable copyright to you? Copyright is about granting a monopoly on a given work for some time period, and that is what we currently have. You can argue that the term is too long or the penalties to severe, but neither of those constitutes a valid reason for breaking copyright. Essentially copyright gives the producer the exclusive right to do whatever he wishes with his work for the term of the copyright, which would include producing crap and charging an unreasonable price.
If you don't like copyright I encourage you to work to change it, not willfully break the law and hope that big business gets the message, I can guarantee you the message they receive won't be the one you intended.
"Actually it does matter, the whole "using a product without paying for it" isn't actually a law, you know"
It's a contract, and there are penalties for breaking contracts, the point of the original article and the bill in front of Congress is upping the penalties for breaking copyright (the contract).
"The way you view the world, the RIAA would be entitled to collect money from every person who listened to a radio station"
You realize that the RIAA already does collect fees from the radio stations for playing their music? So the radio station takes care of that RIAA usage fee.
"It's respected because it's in the best interest of everyone. However, increasingly people are deciding that is no longer in their best interests."
My point is if you don't agree with the contract don't enter into it, i.e. don't use their product. Don't knowing go and break the contract and then try to use some lame excuse about them charging an unrealistic price for their product, the price is what the producer says it is.
"Once one side of a contract has breached it, the other side is no longer bound by the terms of the agreement"
While I agree with this, it still doesn't mean that "other side" can't go and seek any and all penalities for breaking the contract.
"Right now, the content corporations are trying to convince the world's governments that their customers broke the agreement first,"
And their right, the consumer did break the contract first, the consumers are infringing on their copyrights, and not paying the producers what they feel their products are worth. The argument that they charge too much and hence they broke the contract first doesn't work, because it's their product and they can charge whatever they want for it.
As I mentioned previously I am a producer and ask for payment for my products. I know my products are pirated and it irritates me that people refuse to even pay the modest sums I ask for my copyrighted work, but the vast majority of people do pay and in the end that is good enough for me. Obviously the RIAA feels differently and that the infringement of their products is a problem, and it is their right (not as in Constitutionally granted) under copyright to pursue penalties for the infringements.
BTW I don't agree with the RIAA's tactic's and personally don't use any of their products, the music I consume all comes from indie labels.
"The producer hasn't received those monies and has no guarantee of receiving those moneys"
Are you trying to imply that someone that uses a pirated product may not have purchased it anyway? That really isn't relevant, the point is that you are using a producers product without paying for it. It doesn't matter if you ever would have purchased it, you are using someones product that they charge a fee for and you didn't pay the fee, that's wrong.
"Copyright is an artifical restriction that is bound in the good faith agreement between consumers and producers that the producers will charge reasonable prices and consumers will pay them."
My contention is that consumers aren't living up to their end of that agreement. Instead of simply refusing to pay the high prices for the goods produced, they go out and find them for free. This behavior only supports the producers arguments about all of the "criminals" out there stealing their product. If you don't like the price a product is offered at don't buy it, and don't use it for for free.
I live on both sides as well, I produce music and software, and I consume a fair amount of both, but if I don't agree with the price that a producer is trying to sell their product for I don't try and pirate it, I simply find an alternative.
I will agree that copyright duration is currently too long (thank you Disney, etc), but the basic concept of copyright is fair.
"The producer of the product has just as much product as before the piracy occurs. They can still sell that to other people, unlike actual theft, where the producer is deprived of a product that they can sell to others.
"
But you are neglecting the fact that you are using their product without paying for it, it is irrelevant that you haven't decreased their amount of the original. It doesn't matter if they would have purchased the product or not, the fact is they are using the producers product without paying for it, that's wrong.
"You haven't deprived anyone of anything"
You absolutely have, you have deprived the producer of the product the price they charge.
People have developed bad attitudes toward copyright. They feel that just because a producer of material charges too much, they should be able to get a copy for free and use it. They also feel that somehow this sends a message to the producer that they are charging too much, funny thing though, that message didn't quite get received clearly, the producers see it as wide spread "stealing" of their material. If instead these same people had refused to use (legally or illegally) the high priced material and either did without or found cheaper alternatives, the message MIGHT have been received differently, at the very least it would provide a "higher" ground to complain from. Complaining that something is too expensive, while using that same something illegally, doesn't put you in very high standing.
I agree jail time is not the answer, for reasons (prison over population, etc) beyond the punishment doesn't fit the crime, but some sort of stiff fine (2x seems rather lite) and more rigorous enforcement. Start giving these people criminal convictions (no jail time) and stiff fines and see if their attitudes get adjusted. Fines hurt, but having a criminal record dog you for the rest of your life is a lot worse.