Perhaps if the citizens of these countries pushed themselves away from their keyboards and took a more proactive, physical interest in the freedoms most westerners think they should have they might be able to choose any software they like.
More bluntly, if they were willing to fight for the freedoms they might someday have Best Buy and CompUSA right at their fingertips.
But articles written by (well meaning) people wearing pointy hats and living in ivory towers ain't going to do it.
Another question: should we force our consumer-based culture on them or allow them to remain in the (oppressive) culture to which they are accustomed.
if I forgot to set up the VCR and grab it off a torrent somewhere
If you forgot to set up the VCR and get it off torrent then somebody else recorded it and illegally offered it up for uncompensated distribution.
The thought is that some folks, maybe not you, but some folks might have instead gone to Best Buy and bought the DVD of the same program off the shelf.
You insinuated that they might think of you as satan--- maybe not satan, but definately someone in possession of bootlegged conent. And that is a no-no.
All that researching alternate models stuff takes time. Just give them this kind of power so we can see some citizens with pitchforks and torches action on CNN. My cable bill is paid up and hurricane season is almost over. There's (marketing) void between now and Christmas.
If our politicians are dicking around with things like this then maybe we can regroup before invading another country. (note to self: check out dual citizenship with Antigua);-)
I may agree with some of your points but if I put this The actual cost to me of piracy is not that great. My job is fairly secure whether we have piracy or not, as long as it stays at manageable levels. Any sales related bonus is really fairly insiginificant. into a memo and sent it to my boss I'd be let go quicker than you can say EULA.
Sure, well there is.. umm.. oh but there is.. well um.. no. I cannot think of anyone on the planet who does not have some agenda. Including me. (see my sig line!)
I don't care if Linux *is* more difficult to get going at the moment, its built with dedication and a desire for openness..
It is ironic that with it's pervasive openness Linux is too painful for the average user to understand yet with all it's closedness (if that's a word) so many (advanced users) claim to hate Windows and so many commoners love it.
The insane thing about it is the fact that no one supports the bill except a handful of entertainment companies. Probably not even the employees of the entertainment companies. It's bad enough they want to break our televisions, but the way that they are subverting democracy is just astounding.
Are we to believe that companies support something but their employees (whould would benefit from the additional revenue by keeping their jobs) somehow do not support the idea? How long could any of us stay at a company if we consistently opposed our bosses ideas?
Subverting our democracy? Free network television is not in the bill of rights. And there is always short wave radio for us to enjoy!
The question was, "who would be harmed if I downloaded a song I would NEVER buy."
The answer is: the author, the company he signed with, the employees of that company, and the stock holders of that company. That's who you are hurting.
You may not like them because they have something you want for free, but that's life.
Again I ask, why download something unless some level of "enjoyment" is to be derived from it? Obviously you perceive the possbility of some enjoyment. Therefore, unless the product owner/creator authorizes a free download, there should be none. You are taking the content without paying- You should pay for the content.
Actually, the poster asked the question, "who would be harmed if I downloaded a song I would NEVER buy." The question remais, why download something unless some level of "enjoyment" is to be derived from it? Obviously the downloader perceives the possbility of some enjoyment. Therefore, unless the product owner/creator authorizes a free download, there should be none. The downloader should pay for the content.
With respect to corporate radio going only 2 or 3 cuts in and therefore the downloader grants himself the right to obtain illegally uploaded tracks- bull. Unless the creator/author authorizes the relase of those tracks it is unethical to download illegally uploaded material.
We are talking two sides of the same coin. It is not proper to upload the tracks in question. And it is not ethical to download and take fair use of something that hasn't been purchased.
With respect to a user being leary of making a $12-$20 investment- again I say bunk. We do it every day. We buy houses in neighborhoods that can go sour. We date/marry women who turn into turbo-witches. We buy cars that break down after the warranty runs out. We buy computers whose hard drives eventually die. That is life and $12 is a minor "investment" in the grand scheme of things.
To these "users" I advocate listening to the tracks that make it to your favorite radio station. If you like them and like the band, buy the record and listen to the "deep tracks" that don't get much airtime. Life is full of chances and there are very few albums I've bought where every track was a great one. But this is no excuse to steal the ones we want.
Please tell me what damage I am causing to the artists/employees/stockholders by downloading a song that I would never pay for.
That instance of the product and that enjoyment of the product is something a non-paying consumer of the product is not entitled to enjoy.
Riddle me this: why download a product if it were not to be enjoyed?
Answer: the product was downloaded specifically because the downloader anticipated some enjoyment. And it is that enjoyment that deserves compensation- which brings me right back to why the RIAA exists- to thwart those who would download (or copy for purposes of distribution to others wishing the same) for the purpose of enjoyment that product which they are not entitled to take.
Compensation is deserved from those who attempted to enjoy the product.
It's not the label- it's the product/content. In the early days the lable was humped as the in thing.
But I wonder if they hyped it more to attract the hot new talent than to impress the peasant rabble (us).
I'm definately impressed when new talent goes against the grain to find new distribution channels. But I temper that remark with the idea that they do deserve to be paid.:-)
Tell me how I am hurting anybody by downloading a song that I would NEVER pay for.
If you would never pay for it, maybe you shouldn't be entitled to download it from the server illegally serving it up?
You are hurting the artist, the employees of the company with whom the artist signed the contract, and the stockholders of that company.
Since we are doing analogies, following the same logic then the makers the very popular game World of Warcraft should labor to create this great product for years but never require the user to log in. Obviously not.
If it weren't for the illegal downloads would the RIAA be doing this? Probably not.
The combination of technology with morally flexible users facilitates the need for the RIAA.
"Nothing" is what most P2Pers are willing to pay. So we are back to square 1- just because technology makes it easy to copy-and-redistribute-to-non-paying-people (steal) copyrighted material doesn't make it right. As long as this activity continues then companies owning the rights to the products will endeavor to protect their interests. And they have every right to do so.
Congressman Rick Boucher's (D-VA) has obviously not labored months or years crafting desireable content. If he had he would appreciate the creator/artist/software engineer wants and needs to be compensated in amounts the market offers- and not in the miniscule amount some non-creative, we-want-all-content-free hippie type espouses.
Just because technology makes replicating and uploading someone else's hard work to a Bit Torrent server easy doesn't make it responsible to do so.
Put more clearly, if people keep hacking music, video, and software soon it will be fiscally irresponsible for companies like SONY to sign ( insert your favorite garage band here ) to any kind of record deal at all.
Why should Microsoft build applications for an operating system directly competing with their own? Heck, I wouldn't even build notepad for Linux if I thought it would cause people to leave my main product.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps if the citizens of these countries pushed themselves away from their keyboards and took a more proactive, physical interest in the freedoms most westerners think they should have they might be able to choose any software they like.
More bluntly, if they were willing to fight for the freedoms they might someday have Best Buy and CompUSA right at their fingertips.
But articles written by (well meaning) people wearing pointy hats and living in ivory towers ain't going to do it.
Another question: should we force our consumer-based culture on them or allow them to remain in the (oppressive) culture to which they are accustomed.
Does the Prime Directivce apply?
if I forgot to set up the VCR and grab it off a torrent somewhere
If you forgot to set up the VCR and get it off torrent then somebody else recorded it and illegally offered it up for uncompensated distribution.
The thought is that some folks, maybe not you, but some folks might have instead gone to Best Buy and bought the DVD of the same program off the shelf.
You insinuated that they might think of you as satan--- maybe not satan, but definately someone in possession of bootlegged conent. And that is a no-no.
All that researching alternate models stuff takes time. Just give them this kind of power so we can see some citizens with pitchforks and torches action on CNN. My cable bill is paid up and hurricane season is almost over. There's (marketing) void between now and Christmas.
If our politicians are dicking around with things like this then maybe we can regroup before invading another country. (note to self: check out dual citizenship with Antigua)
I may agree with some of your points but if I put this The actual cost to me of piracy is not that great. My job is fairly secure whether we have piracy or not, as long as it stays at manageable levels. Any sales related bonus is really fairly insiginificant. into a memo and sent it to my boss I'd be let go quicker than you can say EULA.
Sure, well there is.. umm.. oh but there is.. well um.. no. I cannot think of anyone on the planet who does not have some agenda. Including me. (see my sig line!)
I don't care if Linux *is* more difficult to get going at the moment, its built with dedication and a desire for openness..
It is ironic that with it's pervasive
openness Linux is too painful for the average user to understand yet with all it's closedness (if that's a word) so many (advanced users) claim to hate Windows and so many commoners love it.
Aaaah, let me warm myself by the fire of this humourous and righteous flamebait. It brings me great joy
The insane thing about it is the fact that no one supports the bill except a handful of entertainment companies. Probably not even the employees of the entertainment companies. It's bad enough they want to break our televisions, but the way that they are subverting democracy is just astounding.
Are we to believe that companies support something but their employees (whould would benefit from the additional revenue by keeping their jobs) somehow do not support the idea? How long could any of us stay at a company if we consistently opposed our bosses ideas?
Subverting our democracy? Free network television is not in the bill of rights. And there is always short wave radio for us to enjoy!
Are Linux boxes invulnerable? Is the gauntlet being thrown at our feet? (lol)
I'm happy they did get nabbed though. There are plenty of fun things to do in life instead of extortion.
Would RFID help track polluters?
Is this a good thing or a bad one? (probably good right?)
The question was, "who would be harmed if I downloaded a song I would NEVER buy."
The answer is: the author, the company he signed with, the employees of that company, and the stock holders of that company. That's who you are hurting.
You may not like them because they have something you want for free, but that's life.
Again I ask, why download something unless some level of "enjoyment" is to be derived from it? Obviously you perceive the possbility of some enjoyment. Therefore, unless the product owner/creator authorizes a free download, there should be none. You are taking the content without paying- You should pay for the content.
Actually, the poster asked the question, "who would be harmed if I downloaded a song I would NEVER buy." The question remais, why download something unless some level of "enjoyment" is to be derived from it? Obviously the downloader perceives the possbility of some enjoyment. Therefore, unless the product owner/creator authorizes a free download, there should be none. The downloader should pay for the content.
With respect to corporate radio going only 2 or 3 cuts in and therefore the downloader grants himself the right to obtain illegally uploaded tracks- bull. Unless the creator/author authorizes the relase of those tracks it is unethical to download illegally uploaded material.
We are talking two sides of the same coin. It is not proper to upload the tracks in question. And it is not ethical to download and take fair use of something that hasn't been purchased.
With respect to a user being leary of making a $12-$20 investment- again I say bunk. We do it every day. We buy houses in neighborhoods that can go sour. We date/marry women who turn into turbo-witches. We buy cars that break down after the warranty runs out. We buy computers whose hard drives eventually die. That is life and $12 is a minor "investment" in the grand scheme of things.
To these "users" I advocate listening to the tracks that make it to your favorite radio station. If you like them and like the band, buy the record and listen to the "deep tracks" that don't get much airtime. Life is full of chances and there are very few albums I've bought where every track was a great one. But this is no excuse to steal the ones we want.
LOL.. funny. We could all do that hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil monkey thing
Please tell me what damage I am causing to the artists/employees/stockholders by downloading a song that I would never pay for.
That instance of the product and that enjoyment of the product is something a non-paying consumer of the product is not entitled to enjoy.
Riddle me this: why download a product if it were not to be enjoyed?
Answer: the product was downloaded specifically because the downloader anticipated some enjoyment. And it is that enjoyment that deserves compensation- which brings me right back to why the RIAA exists- to thwart those who would download (or copy for purposes of distribution to others wishing the same) for the purpose of enjoyment that product which they are not entitled to take.
Compensation is deserved from those who attempted to enjoy the product.
It's not the label- it's the product/content. In the early days the lable was humped as the in thing.
:-)
But I wonder if they hyped it more to attract the hot new talent than to impress the peasant rabble (us).
I'm definately impressed when new talent goes against the grain to find new distribution channels. But I temper that remark with the idea that they do deserve to be paid.
Tell me how I am hurting anybody by downloading a song that I would NEVER pay for.
If you would never pay for it, maybe you shouldn't be entitled to download it from the server illegally serving it up?
You are hurting the artist, the employees of the company with whom the artist signed the contract, and the stockholders of that company.
Since we are doing analogies, following the same logic then the makers the very popular game World of Warcraft should labor to create this great product for years but never require the user to log in. Obviously not.
If it weren't for the illegal downloads would the RIAA be doing this? Probably not.
The combination of technology with morally flexible users facilitates the need for the RIAA.
What does "the industry is democratized" mean?
If the big players are made irrelevant and the industry is democratized (P2P downloads for all?) then how will bands make any money at all.
In that scenario everyone download for free (band gets nothing) or 1 guy pays and uploads to P2P server (band get nothing).
So what does democratized mean?
I'm irked that because I have an opinion contrary to most on slashdot my response is considered flamebait.
I find the idea of people P2P-ing to steal content flamebait itself.
Because 5 million is a lot better than NOTHING.
"Nothing" is what most P2Pers are willing to pay. So we are back to square 1- just because technology makes it easy to copy-and-redistribute-to-non-paying-people (steal) copyrighted material doesn't make it right. As long as this activity continues then companies owning the rights to the products will endeavor to protect their interests. And they have every right to do so.
they'll be able to distribute their stuff online without having to deal with Sony lawyers!
Without SONY lawyers the garage band will have to track P2P theives themselves.
Are they good at that? Will the threat of garage band pursuit stop digital theives? (no)
Newsflash: Your garage band doesn't want to continue living in a van.. down by the river!
They want to enjoy the good life a bit no matter much their marketing leads you to believe they are "keeping it real"
Watch MTV when they show the homes of these artists. It ain't a van down by the river. And they get this $$$ from companies like SONY.
Congressman Rick Boucher's (D-VA) has obviously not labored months or years crafting desireable content. If he had he would appreciate the creator/artist/software engineer wants and needs to be compensated in amounts the market offers- and not in the miniscule amount some non-creative, we-want-all-content-free hippie type espouses.
Just because technology makes replicating and uploading someone else's hard work to a Bit Torrent server easy doesn't make it responsible to do so.
Put more clearly, if people keep hacking music, video, and software soon it will be fiscally irresponsible for companies like SONY to sign ( insert your favorite garage band here ) to any kind of record deal at all.
How is it spelled?
WHINE or WINE?.....
Why should Microsoft build applications for an operating system directly competing with their own?
Heck, I wouldn't even build notepad for Linux if I thought it would cause people to leave my main product.