I didn't say the price for pirating music was zero. I said that consumers don't want to pay anything for a product or service. Of course, producers would like to charge an infinite amount. It is up to the two to agree on a fair price. Anyway, just because piracy cost time and effort, doesn't mean it should be an economic factor in deciding the price of music. By that arguement, you're proving the RIAA case, because whatever effect priacy has on the cost of music is lost revenue for the RIAA. That is why they are spending all the money on the lawyers. The just want a cheap solution to stop piracy. If that mean strong encryption of every cd, that will be the future since it's their product to sell. If you don't like it, start your own record label and make your own policies. That's the American way, anyway.
If an RIAA member has an exclusive contract with an artist and owns the copyright to that music, it IS, by law, the sole provider of that music. That is between the artist and the label. The consumer doesn't get to say anything about it. Whether or not the RIAA can predict the future accurately is irrelevant. What is relevant is that are people obtaining unlawful copies of RIAA music. The answer is yes. And if the RIAA decides to buy the mp3 patent from the current owner, they also have the right to charge fees for mp3 players and recorders. If you don't like the way they do business, boycott their products.
I'm not saying you're not willing to pay more than zero for something. I'm saying that if someone was selling a product for $1 and someone was selling the exact same product for $0, you'd pick the one that was $0. People want to pay the minimum amount for something. Simple economic principle.
The interesting thing about the article is that Intel is now using SiGe bipolar devices as well as CMOS FETs in their mixed-signal designs. The author doesn't seem to understand the technology well enough to understand that this is the key point. It's a technology achievement for Intel, not a design achievement. People have been doing mixed-signal designs for quite some time now.
Guess what. The average price someone wants to pay for something, regardless of its value, is zero. Consumers alone do not dictate the price of music. The producers have something to say about it as well. If you this its overpriced, you have the option to not buy it, but you don't have the option to steal it. If it weren't for piracy, the RIAA wouldn't care about protecting their IP. This would mean we could make "fair-use" copies for ourselves without any interference. I'm surpirsed/. members aren't taking a more active stance against priacy if they want to easily make copies of copyrighted material for their own use.
How does putting an easy-to-find serial number that a consumer can optionally use to register a purchase fight piracy? Answer, not a damn thing. It doesn't change the fact that you can still rip and distribute the musci anonymously p2p.
In The US anyway, we believe in the protection of individual rights. This includes the right of a company or individual to own the work that it creates, including intellectual property. A consumer has the right to either do business with a company or not do business with a company based on whether or not they like the companies product and practices. Consumers do NOT have the right to steal intellectual property if they don't like the way business is done by a company. Another option is to start your own business using a competing standard if you don't like the way DVD is marketed. The producer of a product has some say in what he thinks it's worth. That's how free markets work. It's up to the the producer and consumer together to reach an agreement on price. The consumer can't just say "music is cheap" and expect to get whatever price he asks. The music artists and labels have a say as well. So in summary, you may disagree with the way a company does business, and it may not be the best way to do business, but they have the right to their IP, regardless, and you don't have the right to steal their IP because they won't sell it to you in a form you want.
You are confusing a number of ideas into one lump. First, a paid coder is working for a company that own the IP. They are taking the risk, not the programmer who writes the code. This is negotiated when the programmer accepts the job. Paid musicians may or may not own their works based on the contracts they vonuntarily sign with their record labels. Again, a voluntary agreement to give up your IP or copyright. Same thing for trechnical writers as programmers. Now, a freelance photographer is working for himself. Therefore, he owns his copyrighted work and takes all the risks. If you want to own your wedding photos, you can, but you need to negotiate that in the contract you sign with the photographer. Otherwise you can opt for the pay per copy scenario, and allow the photographer the right to retain the copyright. So in short, the difference is that in all your examples, the poepl involved voluntarily gave up their copyright for their paycheck
If you allow people to ditributed copyrighted work freely, you remove the incentive to create the copyrighted work. Why would I bother investing millions of dollars creating the next great software product if I know I can only sell a couple of copies before everyone starts making copies for free? Therefore, allowing duplication of copyrighted works DOES have ill effects. It will reduce the amount of effort put into important projects and slow progress. Although Greed has a negative connotation, it has been the single greatest motivator for the improvent of the standard of living throughout the last couple of centuries. If people hadn't taken the risks to start businesses based on good ideas, things such as the refrigerator and the automobile would not exist. BTW, these so called evil corporations provide jobs for millions of people as well as provide important products and services. They don't ask for your thanks, only a fair price for their products.
A paid programmer typically agrees that all his work is owned by the company in return for his weekly salary. The agreement is mutual. With the pool cleaner example, I wouldn't pay $50, but maybe $5 would be acceptable, under those terms. I was a grad student at RPI, and RPI made me sign a contract saying anything I patent, they automatically own the patent, so I'm not sure where you get wour info about scientists at research institutes. The reality is that there is a notion of copyright and intellectual property for certain types of work. The creator has the right until agreement is made whereby he transfers that right to someone else. No one is saying you can't own your wedding photos. It's all in the contract you sign with the photographer. Since this is a free market, however, people are willing to pay less to not own their wedding photos and simply pay per copy.
As far as the DVD comment goes, it should be illegal to pass around free software to play DVDs on any OS. The people who invented the DVD format require a licensing fee for a player. They're IP should be respected. All your other comments are a direct result of piracy. Why not say what the real problem is? It's not "the power of people with money" that's the problem, but the power given to unscrupulous pirates by the digital age. These companies are just looking for solutions to minimize their losses. It costs them money to worry about these things, so they wouldn't bother if they were not worried about losing a lot more by not pursuing these measures.
Why is this flamebait? I want to know the answer too. If the post that generated this repsonse, really was insightful, he would have actually tried to support his assertion.
In captialist systems, people's rights to own their work are protected. If you don't like it, Cuba and China might be places you'd rather spend your days.
"This is why when I get married I want to make sure I contract only for the photographer's labor." That statement is fine is you can come to an agreement with a photographer, but be prepared to pay more. As an analogy consider getting Celine Dion to write you a song for your wedding. Do you expect her to simply turn over the copyright to you without charging extra? The song may turn into a top ten hit, at which point you'd be a millionaire. The artist should have the option to maintain his copyright, unless he signs it over voluntarily. The fact that a photographer doesn't want to provide digital images is similar to why the MPAA wants encrypted tamper proof DVDs. They know otherwise their work will be copied without their authorization. Even by putting one of these pictures on a website, you are providing others with a means of copying a picture for which you do not own the copyright.
What diference does it make if it's a billion dollar company you're cheating, or a guy barely scraping by. Either way it is wrong. The MPAA deserves the same respect that an individual photographer deserves for copyrighted works. Everything you complain about, the MPAA members deal with on the order of millions of dollars instead of thousands of dollars. They're taking risks as well.
And you wonder why the RIAA and MPAA want encryption and DRM for their copyrighted work. Some people like this guy will break the law without any remorse. BTW, if you're a prof. photographer taking pictures for a news agency, you're not paying your subject either, so your arguement about the photographer not paying for the wedding doesn't stand up to srutiny.
1. I've always advocated boycotting the RIAA as a means of protesting their practices. So we are in agreement there. 2. I use the RIAA as an example because the own the copyrights to over 90% of music people listen to, so therefore, if you want to buy music online, you probably want to buy it from them. 3. I use Linux to privide an analogy. You have heard of the concept, haven't you? 4. You mentioned that people's solution when told they can't buy online is to share illegally online. Whether you are merely stating this or espousing it I do not know. In either case, this is not an acceptable form of protest to force music providers to sell online music since it is illegal. See point 1 for an acceptable practice.
Therefore you are using illegal tactics to go from "what I want" -> "force conformation". Whether or not you understood what you wrote, I understood what I read and applied appropriately.
If someone stole your computer and you knew who it was, you could certainly call the police and ask them to recover it for you. They're doing the same thing. It's not someone's content their removing it's THEIR content they're taking back.
Re:they've got it all backwards
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 1
Yes, you've probably pointed out the reason why squishy DRM will never fly. It's way too easy to circumvent.
Just because you want a company to sell you a product in a particular form, doesn't obligate them to do so. How would you like it if random people took control of Linux from Linus and started dictating how it should be developed. Most slashdotters would be in an uproar. Yet they claim the right to dictate how the RIAA does business.
The US government is designed to protect the rights of individuals. This includes the rights of the RIAA to package their product in any form they choose. Just because you want them to distribute their music as mp3, doesn't obligate them to do so. What if the govt. started telling Linus how Linux should be designed because "that's what the people want". Slashdot would be in an uproar. Yet this is exactly the policy they want to take with the RIAA/MPAA. This is not what the US constitution states. If you don't like their product you have the option to boycott it. Beyond that, you have no right to tell a company how they can conduct business. Once you get the govt. involved you start eroding the free market system. Illegal copies via p2p is not a legal option, and is theft of property. Regardless of what the statistics claim about p2p sharing and cd sales, doesn't make it right to steal these songs.
Re:they've got it all backwards
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 1
An ethernet card mac address is a pretty unique identifier. Palladium will eventually be used. The point is, Bob Smith won't rip songs for other people anymore since it will land him in jail. Once they "leeches" have no one ripping songs for them anymore, they will buy the music, according to the RIAA.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say the price for pirating music was zero. I said that consumers don't want to pay anything for a product or service. Of course, producers would like to charge an infinite amount. It is up to the two to agree on a fair price. Anyway, just because piracy cost time and effort, doesn't mean it should be an economic factor in deciding the price of music. By that arguement, you're proving the RIAA case, because whatever effect priacy has on the cost of music is lost revenue for the RIAA. That is why they are spending all the money on the lawyers. The just want a cheap solution to stop piracy. If that mean strong encryption of every cd, that will be the future since it's their product to sell. If you don't like it, start your own record label and make your own policies. That's the American way, anyway.
If an RIAA member has an exclusive contract with an artist and owns the copyright to that music, it IS, by law, the sole provider of that music. That is between the artist and the label. The consumer doesn't get to say anything about it. Whether or not the RIAA can predict the future accurately is irrelevant. What is relevant is that are people obtaining unlawful copies of RIAA music. The answer is yes. And if the RIAA decides to buy the mp3 patent from the current owner, they also have the right to charge fees for mp3 players and recorders. If you don't like the way they do business, boycott their products.
I'm not saying you're not willing to pay more than zero for something. I'm saying that if someone was selling a product for $1 and someone was selling the exact same product for $0, you'd pick the one that was $0. People want to pay the minimum amount for something. Simple economic principle.
The interesting thing about the article is that Intel is now using SiGe bipolar devices as well as CMOS FETs in their mixed-signal designs. The author doesn't seem to understand the technology well enough to understand that this is the key point. It's a technology achievement for Intel, not a design achievement. People have been doing mixed-signal designs for quite some time now.
http://www.commsdesign.com/design_center/opticalne tworking/news/OEG20020915S0001
Guess what. The average price someone wants to pay for something, regardless of its value, is zero. Consumers alone do not dictate the price of music. The producers have something to say about it as well. If you this its overpriced, you have the option to not buy it, but you don't have the option to steal it. If it weren't for piracy, the RIAA wouldn't care about protecting their IP. This would mean we could make "fair-use" copies for ourselves without any interference. I'm surpirsed /. members aren't taking a more active stance against priacy if they want to easily make copies of copyrighted material for their own use.
How does putting an easy-to-find serial number that a consumer can optionally use to register a purchase fight piracy? Answer, not a damn thing. It doesn't change the fact that you can still rip and distribute the musci anonymously p2p.
In The US anyway, we believe in the protection of individual rights. This includes the right of a company or individual to own the work that it creates, including intellectual property. A consumer has the right to either do business with a company or not do business with a company based on whether or not they like the companies product and practices. Consumers do NOT have the right to steal intellectual property if they don't like the way business is done by a company. Another option is to start your own business using a competing standard if you don't like the way DVD is marketed. The producer of a product has some say in what he thinks it's worth. That's how free markets work. It's up to the the producer and consumer together to reach an agreement on price. The consumer can't just say "music is cheap" and expect to get whatever price he asks. The music artists and labels have a say as well. So in summary, you may disagree with the way a company does business, and it may not be the best way to do business, but they have the right to their IP, regardless, and you don't have the right to steal their IP because they won't sell it to you in a form you want.
You are confusing a number of ideas into one lump. First, a paid coder is working for a company that own the IP. They are taking the risk, not the programmer who writes the code. This is negotiated when the programmer accepts the job. Paid musicians may or may not own their works based on the contracts they vonuntarily sign with their record labels. Again, a voluntary agreement to give up your IP or copyright. Same thing for trechnical writers as programmers. Now, a freelance photographer is working for himself. Therefore, he owns his copyrighted work and takes all the risks. If you want to own your wedding photos, you can, but you need to negotiate that in the contract you sign with the photographer. Otherwise you can opt for the pay per copy scenario, and allow the photographer the right to retain the copyright. So in short, the difference is that in all your examples, the poepl involved voluntarily gave up their copyright for their paycheck
If you allow people to ditributed copyrighted work freely, you remove the incentive to create the copyrighted work. Why would I bother investing millions of dollars creating the next great software product if I know I can only sell a couple of copies before everyone starts making copies for free? Therefore, allowing duplication of copyrighted works DOES have ill effects. It will reduce the amount of effort put into important projects and slow progress. Although Greed has a negative connotation, it has been the single greatest motivator for the improvent of the standard of living throughout the last couple of centuries. If people hadn't taken the risks to start businesses based on good ideas, things such as the refrigerator and the automobile would not exist. BTW, these so called evil corporations provide jobs for millions of people as well as provide important products and services. They don't ask for your thanks, only a fair price for their products.
A paid programmer typically agrees that all his work is owned by the company in return for his weekly salary. The agreement is mutual. With the pool cleaner example, I wouldn't pay $50, but maybe $5 would be acceptable, under those terms. I was a grad student at RPI, and RPI made me sign a contract saying anything I patent, they automatically own the patent, so I'm not sure where you get wour info about scientists at research institutes. The reality is that there is a notion of copyright and intellectual property for certain types of work. The creator has the right until agreement is made whereby he transfers that right to someone else. No one is saying you can't own your wedding photos. It's all in the contract you sign with the photographer. Since this is a free market, however, people are willing to pay less to not own their wedding photos and simply pay per copy.
As far as the DVD comment goes, it should be illegal to pass around free software to play DVDs on any OS. The people who invented the DVD format require a licensing fee for a player. They're IP should be respected. All your other comments are a direct result of piracy. Why not say what the real problem is? It's not "the power of people with money" that's the problem, but the power given to unscrupulous pirates by the digital age. These companies are just looking for solutions to minimize their losses. It costs them money to worry about these things, so they wouldn't bother if they were not worried about losing a lot more by not pursuing these measures.
Why is this flamebait? I want to know the answer too. If the post that generated this repsonse, really was insightful, he would have actually tried to support his assertion.
In captialist systems, people's rights to own their work are protected. If you don't like it, Cuba and China might be places you'd rather spend your days.
"This is why when I get married I want to make sure I contract only for the photographer's labor." That statement is fine is you can come to an agreement with a photographer, but be prepared to pay more. As an analogy consider getting Celine Dion to write you a song for your wedding. Do you expect her to simply turn over the copyright to you without charging extra? The song may turn into a top ten hit, at which point you'd be a millionaire. The artist should have the option to maintain his copyright, unless he signs it over voluntarily. The fact that a photographer doesn't want to provide digital images is similar to why the MPAA wants encrypted tamper proof DVDs. They know otherwise their work will be copied without their authorization. Even by putting one of these pictures on a website, you are providing others with a means of copying a picture for which you do not own the copyright.
What diference does it make if it's a billion dollar company you're cheating, or a guy barely scraping by. Either way it is wrong. The MPAA deserves the same respect that an individual photographer deserves for copyrighted works. Everything you complain about, the MPAA members deal with on the order of millions of dollars instead of thousands of dollars. They're taking risks as well.
It's his negative that captures his interpretation of an event. That makes it his copyrighted work.
And you wonder why the RIAA and MPAA want encryption and DRM for their copyrighted work. Some people like this guy will break the law without any remorse. BTW, if you're a prof. photographer taking pictures for a news agency, you're not paying your subject either, so your arguement about the photographer not paying for the wedding doesn't stand up to srutiny.
Sorry for confusing you by using a rational arguement.
1. I've always advocated boycotting the RIAA as a means of protesting their practices. So we are in agreement there. 2. I use the RIAA as an example because the own the copyrights to over 90% of music people listen to, so therefore, if you want to buy music online, you probably want to buy it from them. 3. I use Linux to privide an analogy. You have heard of the concept, haven't you? 4. You mentioned that people's solution when told they can't buy online is to share illegally online. Whether you are merely stating this or espousing it I do not know. In either case, this is not an acceptable form of protest to force music providers to sell online music since it is illegal. See point 1 for an acceptable practice. Therefore you are using illegal tactics to go from "what I want" -> "force conformation". Whether or not you understood what you wrote, I understood what I read and applied appropriately.
If someone stole your computer and you knew who it was, you could certainly call the police and ask them to recover it for you. They're doing the same thing. It's not someone's content their removing it's THEIR content they're taking back.
Yes, you've probably pointed out the reason why squishy DRM will never fly. It's way too easy to circumvent.
Just because you want a company to sell you a product in a particular form, doesn't obligate them to do so. How would you like it if random people took control of Linux from Linus and started dictating how it should be developed. Most slashdotters would be in an uproar. Yet they claim the right to dictate how the RIAA does business.
The US government is designed to protect the rights of individuals. This includes the rights of the RIAA to package their product in any form they choose. Just because you want them to distribute their music as mp3, doesn't obligate them to do so. What if the govt. started telling Linus how Linux should be designed because "that's what the people want". Slashdot would be in an uproar. Yet this is exactly the policy they want to take with the RIAA/MPAA. This is not what the US constitution states. If you don't like their product you have the option to boycott it. Beyond that, you have no right to tell a company how they can conduct business. Once you get the govt. involved you start eroding the free market system. Illegal copies via p2p is not a legal option, and is theft of property. Regardless of what the statistics claim about p2p sharing and cd sales, doesn't make it right to steal these songs.
An ethernet card mac address is a pretty unique identifier. Palladium will eventually be used. The point is, Bob Smith won't rip songs for other people anymore since it will land him in jail. Once they "leeches" have no one ripping songs for them anymore, they will buy the music, according to the RIAA.