"Think about it: if copyright never expired, where would the motivation to innovate come from? There would be none, if you could indefinitely profit from one or two ideas."
Right. Pixar creates a hit film, Toy Story, and then closes shop because they make a fortune. That's what happened, right?
"Please, stop using the words "owner", owns" etc. when you're talking about copyright and similar things. For that matter, please stop talking about "intellectual property", too - there is nothing here that's property or being owned."
Let's not call a landowner an owner either. After all, it's just a piece of paper issued by the govt. saying he owns the piece of land.
Here's the thing. Only the biggest socialists would say a person can't own land, because most people can afford to and want to own land. However, most people can't create anything worthwhile to copyright, so everyone wants copyright to expire so they can get something for free off of the backs of creative people and their investors.
Simple unchanged copying as a form of copyright should last forever, just like any other property.
""That's surviellence of an enemy, and given the Presidents power to wage war, it's not any stretch of the imagination that this sort of activity is within his authority."
Richard Nixon thought so, but somehow that didn't help him any. "
Watergate had nothing to do with the Vietnam War, nor did anyone ever claim it did.
"Actually, you're talking about the laws of your country and the principles upon which it was founded. You may want to try reading books instead of burning them, you may learn something."
Yes, and the FISA wiretapping law may not apply in a time of war because of a presidental Constitutional powers. The supreme court will ultimately decide, I'm sure. Your ad hominim attack is unnecessary. grow up.
"No rational person can make the case that the disclosure of this program has damaged national security, so by making it you prove your irrationality."
Huh. If agents know their conversations might be tapped they will find ways of coding their communications. Pretty rational reason to keep the program secret. The statement you made was the irrational one.
"people who will happily give away this country's proud heritage because they're terrified of the big bad swarthy bogeyman."
Equating al Qaeda to the bogeyman is also irrational.
Who mods this crap up and mods down any/. groupthink dissenting opinion as flaimbait./. is guilty of censorship.
I don't even agree with Bush's program, and your arguements still suck ass.
"And watch it break down in six months due to being cheap quality hardware, plagued with malware in the meantime, with no iLife or other bundled apps or other software and hardware features. And no OS X."
Yeah, because there have been so many complaints about hardware quality from HP boxes. You Apple zealots crack me up. I don't give a shit about OS X
And I can go to a real dealer... heck, forget the real dealer, just off Newegg alone last night I put together a system that had the same specs as certain Dells and HPs, yet was less than half the cost. If you're going to shoot down his argument, don't do it with a stupid exmaple."
I was going to say that, but then I'd get the "there's no support for that kind of box, and it's too much work to put together, etc.", so I went with a brand name solution. Personally, I agree with you. Build it yourself for half the price.
"What, exactly, is Amazon going to be banking on by branding a line of music players? Their history for making functional, attractive gadgets? Hmm...no, that's Apple. Is the consumer expected to look at an Amazon-branded MP3 player they've never seen before and think, "Ah, Amazon! They do such a good job shipping gifts on or around Christmas, I'll bet their digital music service rocks?""
Apple is run by a bunch of pricks that don't play fair, or is that Fairplay. So you can't sell music for an major record label downloaded music for iPod unless you're Apple. Therefore, to entice people to your service, you need to offer them an inexpensive alternative to an iPod. Since no such thing exists, you need to create it yourself. People give away cell phones to get subscribers. Amazon wants to see if this will wor for portable music.
"You make that sound like a bad thing:^) Seriously though, why would you want to use WMA? Have you purchased songs from a WMA music store? It would seem odd if you encoded your own stuff in WMA, but then also want OGG support. Personally, I'm quite happy with AAC, but my entire collection is encoded in it and I've shopped at the iTMS."
Because all music subscription services are offered using WMA. Either that or have Apple license Fairplay so others can support iPod.
Apple uses iTMS to promote iPods. Amazon wants to discount portable music players to promote a subscription service. I'd prefer a subscription service for online music. Who wants to "own" a DRMed file. Might as well just rent them.
"The faster we use up all of the economically obtainable oil, the sooner people can stop whining about using it all up and the sooner we can get on with whatever is next."
Not to mention all the whining about global warming.
Anybody who believes the first quote doesn't understand publishing. Anyone who believes the second quote doesn't understand economics and doesn't understand the third quote:
"everybody enjoys a greater amount of entertainment at a cheaper cost and publishers, made useless by modern advances in technology, no longer become billionaires on the backs of artists?"
"corporate big-wigs getting rich should have their methods and profits guaranteed?"
"I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
"It's interesting to note that the "hot-button" issues you listed are all ones where the opponents are on the political right, while you ignore the "hot-button" issues where the opponents are on the left."
The left is a minority in govt. these days so I didn't bother with their agenda.
"Girls are taught that math is for boys? Did you miss the latest Newsweek article which reports that, all across the board, girls are scoring higher than boys?"
I don't claim they're not good at it, but culturally they're taught that there's no future for it for them, and it's just something to learn until college. After that they're supposed to be liberal arts types. The only real exception I've noticed is that there's a push for women to get m.d. degrees.
Aside from a few hot button issues (stem cell research, intelligent design, global warming), I don't see the anti-intellectualism that he describes from govt. And we see fiction on both sides of the aisle with global warming (The Day After Tomorrow). The real problem is that our culture no longer values science. First, girls are taught at an early age that math and science is for boys. Second, at high school level, when people are at the age where they start thinking about careers seriously for the first time, math and science are something nerds do, and people are often ridiculed for being interested in these subjects. This cultural bias has a much stronger influence on intellectualism than a few govt. hot issues that are the supposed cause for anti-intellectualism. Even if a person isn't interested in a career involving math and science directly, having some understanding of these subjects help develop skills in logic and critical thinking, which are useful no matter what you're doing. I don't think the anti-intellectual culture in the US will change anytime soon. It's been around since the 60's and 70's or so when the "Protestant work ethic" changed into more of an "I'm ok, you're ok" attitude.
The article states that the US fell in rank for imprisoning reporters who wouldn't divulge sources. This was due to an overzealous prosecutor investigating the CIA operative leak. So the Democrats are responsible for destroying freedom of press since getting back at the Republicans is more important than basic civil liberties (Republicans do this all the time too).
"The Index also refutes the theory frequently advanced by leaders of poor and repressive countries that economic development is a vital prerequisite for democracy and the respect for human rights."
It's the other way around. Respect for basic individual rights is a prerequisite for economic development. Repressive governments severely hinder economic growth by making it difficult for businessmen to be free to do their work without govt. red tape, restrictions, bribes, uncertainty of having property nationalized, etc.
"But somehow Apple can get away with this, why is this? Because they less of a monopoly?"
Apple does not have a monopoly in the personal computer arena. People are looking at similar practices by Apple in the portable music player/online music business because they do have a monopoly in this area (at least by the same standard that Microsoft is a monopoly in the personal computer OS area).
"An officially unsupported OS will always be crippled compared to the supported one, It'll crash, it won't have proper driver support and it won't be updated nearly as fast. "
Ahh, no. Given an Apple premium for hardware, you could assemble an x86 box with hardware already supported by Apple, and then simply patch the box just like the Apple hardware users.
Nobody shed any tears for Microsoft even though they can make all the same arguements for integrating a browser, and not wanting a Netscape browser shipped with Windows.
"My iPod plays.mp3s just fine. I've even paid for some of them (as opposed to the ones I got by ripping my entire CD collection, which I also paid for)."
You can't buy an mp3 online for a song owned by a major music label. Buying a cd and ripping it is not a solution if you only want one song for $0.99
"Microsoft had a monopoly, but they did something different.
They threatened to raise the license fees or cancel the Windows licenses on Compaq if Compaq bundled Netscape on the desktop.
Apple has done nothing similar. It would be like Apple refusing to sell iPods to stores that also sold PCs, or raising the price of iPods to stores that also sold other MP3 players. Apple has done neither."
The EU is currently suing Microsft to open up their OS so other OS's can interoperate. Apple is refusing to allow interoperability in their monopoly market.
Apple has threatened to sue Real for selling songs with Fairplay DRM that they reverse engineered.
"While this anti-trust suit makes my blood boil, I think the best thing would be to counter sue, but not only Mr. Sluttery. Sue Microsoft because their "Pplays for Sure" does not play on my iPod. Sue Napster because their music does not play on my iPod (and their crapshit store doesn't even work on my Mac).
Come on you brave Americans, do it the good old American way: Countersue."
plays for sure WMA is not a monopoly (how many plays for sure files have been sold compared to iTMS files). Napster is not a monopoly (how many sangs has Napster sold/rented compared to iTMS).
"Let's see, here's a song I've downloaded from iTMS... here's a blank CD. Mix, Burn, stick it in a Sony Discman... that's a portable device you know... and it's just fine."
cross converting a song to mp3 by first burning to a cd is a hassle, and degrades the music quality, as well as wastes a cd-r. The file should just work as is without circumventing the DRM, but Apple refuses to license Fairplay.
"Now, let's see... I go to Amazon.com, buy a CD, it costs a little more than on iTMS"
Straw man arguement. We're talking about buying a single song online, not buying a cd, which people here love to call a dying business model.
I'd love to try a subscription service and use it with my iPod, but I can't because Apple doesn't offer one, and Apple doesn't let anyone else sell me one that includes some sort of DRM.
"f the court were to force Apple to license FairPlay Apple would then have to assume the Support Cost of making sure that songs purchased on iTunes function on other players. This in my opinion is the main reason Apple has locked out other players."
If a song plays on iTunes on a pc, but not on a portable player, the person calls the maker of the portable player, not Apple. Therefore, the support costs are amost entirely on the maker of the portable player.
"think the DoJ judgements had very little effect at all on Microsoft,"
I disagree. The DoJ case forced Microsoft to stop making exclusive deals with OEM's so now OEM's can sell alternative operating systems for x86, and install non-microsoft products on Windows such as firefox.
Slashdot Mirror
"Think about it: if copyright never expired, where would the motivation to innovate come from? There would be none, if you could indefinitely profit from one or two ideas."
Right. Pixar creates a hit film, Toy Story, and then closes shop because they make a fortune. That's what happened, right?
"Please, stop using the words "owner", owns" etc. when you're talking about copyright and similar things. For that matter, please stop talking about "intellectual property", too - there is nothing here that's property or being owned."
Let's not call a landowner an owner either. After all, it's just a piece of paper issued by the govt. saying he owns the piece of land.
Here's the thing. Only the biggest socialists would say a person can't own land, because most people can afford to and want to own land. However, most people can't create anything worthwhile to copyright, so everyone wants copyright to expire so they can get something for free off of the backs of creative people and their investors.
Simple unchanged copying as a form of copyright should last forever, just like any other property.
""That's surviellence of an enemy, and given the Presidents power to wage war, it's not any stretch of the imagination that this sort of activity is within his authority."
Richard Nixon thought so, but somehow that didn't help him any. "
Watergate had nothing to do with the Vietnam War, nor did anyone ever claim it did.
"Actually, you're talking about the laws of your country and the principles upon which it was founded. You may want to try reading books instead of burning them, you may learn something."
Yes, and the FISA wiretapping law may not apply in a time of war because of a presidental Constitutional powers. The supreme court will ultimately decide, I'm sure. Your ad hominim attack is unnecessary. grow up.
"No rational person can make the case that the disclosure of this program has damaged national security, so by making it you prove your irrationality."
/. groupthink dissenting opinion as flaimbait. /. is guilty of censorship.
Huh. If agents know their conversations might be tapped they will find ways of coding their communications. Pretty rational reason to keep the program secret. The statement you made was the irrational one.
"people who will happily give away this country's proud heritage because they're terrified of the big bad swarthy bogeyman."
Equating al Qaeda to the bogeyman is also irrational.
Who mods this crap up and mods down any
I don't even agree with Bush's program, and your arguements still suck ass.
"And watch it break down in six months due to being cheap quality hardware, plagued with malware in the meantime, with no iLife or other bundled apps or other software and hardware features. And no OS X."
Yeah, because there have been so many complaints about hardware quality from HP boxes. You Apple zealots crack me up. I don't give a shit about OS X
"Ha!
And I can go to a real dealer... heck, forget the real dealer, just off Newegg alone last night I put together a system that had the same specs as certain Dells and HPs, yet was less than half the cost. If you're going to shoot down his argument, don't do it with a stupid exmaple."
I was going to say that, but then I'd get the "there's no support for that kind of box, and it's too much work to put together, etc.", so I went with a brand name solution. Personally, I agree with you. Build it yourself for half the price.
"Macs dont cost any more than PCs that are comperably equipped in hardware, software and OS."
BS. I can go to HP and get the same hardware as an Intel iMac for less without even trying hard.
"What, exactly, is Amazon going to be banking on by branding a line of music players? Their history for making functional, attractive gadgets? Hmm...no, that's Apple. Is the consumer expected to look at an Amazon-branded MP3 player they've never seen before and think, "Ah, Amazon! They do such a good job shipping gifts on or around Christmas, I'll bet their digital music service rocks?""
Apple is run by a bunch of pricks that don't play fair, or is that Fairplay. So you can't sell music for an major record label downloaded music for iPod unless you're Apple. Therefore, to entice people to your service, you need to offer them an inexpensive alternative to an iPod. Since no such thing exists, you need to create it yourself. People give away cell phones to get subscribers. Amazon wants to see if this will wor for portable music.
"You make that sound like a bad thing :^) Seriously though, why would you want to use WMA? Have you purchased songs from a WMA music store? It would seem odd if you encoded your own stuff in WMA, but then also want OGG support. Personally, I'm quite happy with AAC, but my entire collection is encoded in it and I've shopped at the iTMS."
Because all music subscription services are offered using WMA. Either that or have Apple license Fairplay so others can support iPod.
Apple uses iTMS to promote iPods. Amazon wants to discount portable music players to promote a subscription service. I'd prefer a subscription service for online music. Who wants to "own" a DRMed file. Might as well just rent them.
"The faster we use up all of the economically obtainable oil, the sooner people can stop whining about using it all up and the sooner we can get on with whatever is next."
Not to mention all the whining about global warming.
Anybody who believes the first quote doesn't understand publishing. Anyone who believes the second quote doesn't understand economics and doesn't understand the third quote:
"everybody enjoys a greater amount of entertainment at a cheaper cost and publishers, made useless by modern advances in technology, no longer become billionaires on the backs of artists?"
"corporate big-wigs getting rich should have their methods and profits guaranteed?"
"I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
"It's interesting to note that the "hot-button" issues you listed are all ones where the opponents are on the political right, while you ignore the "hot-button" issues where the opponents are on the left."
The left is a minority in govt. these days so I didn't bother with their agenda.
"Girls are taught that math is for boys? Did you miss the latest Newsweek article which reports that, all across the board, girls are scoring higher than boys?"
I don't claim they're not good at it, but culturally they're taught that there's no future for it for them, and it's just something to learn until college. After that they're supposed to be liberal arts types. The only real exception I've noticed is that there's a push for women to get m.d. degrees.
Aside from a few hot button issues (stem cell research, intelligent design, global warming), I don't see the anti-intellectualism that he describes from govt. And we see fiction on both sides of the aisle with global warming (The Day After Tomorrow). The real problem is that our culture no longer values science. First, girls are taught at an early age that math and science is for boys. Second, at high school level, when people are at the age where they start thinking about careers seriously for the first time, math and science are something nerds do, and people are often ridiculed for being interested in these subjects. This cultural bias has a much stronger influence on intellectualism than a few govt. hot issues that are the supposed cause for anti-intellectualism. Even if a person isn't interested in a career involving math and science directly, having some understanding of these subjects help develop skills in logic and critical thinking, which are useful no matter what you're doing. I don't think the anti-intellectual culture in the US will change anytime soon. It's been around since the 60's and 70's or so when the "Protestant work ethic" changed into more of an "I'm ok, you're ok" attitude.
"The USA ranked 44th. (Fell more than 20 places)"
The article states that the US fell in rank for imprisoning reporters who wouldn't divulge sources. This was due to an overzealous prosecutor investigating the CIA operative leak. So the Democrats are responsible for destroying freedom of press since getting back at the Republicans is more important than basic civil liberties (Republicans do this all the time too).
"The Index also refutes the theory frequently advanced by leaders of poor and repressive countries that economic development is a vital prerequisite for democracy and the respect for human rights."
It's the other way around. Respect for basic individual rights is a prerequisite for economic development. Repressive governments severely hinder economic growth by making it difficult for businessmen to be free to do their work without govt. red tape, restrictions, bribes, uncertainty of having property nationalized, etc.
"But somehow Apple can get away with this, why is this? Because they less of a monopoly?"
Apple does not have a monopoly in the personal computer arena. People are looking at similar practices by Apple in the portable music player/online music business because they do have a monopoly in this area (at least by the same standard that Microsoft is a monopoly in the personal computer OS area).
"An officially unsupported OS will always be crippled compared to the supported one,
It'll crash, it won't have proper driver support and it won't be updated nearly as fast.
"
Ahh, no. Given an Apple premium for hardware, you could assemble an x86 box with hardware already supported by Apple, and then simply patch the box just like the Apple hardware users.
Nobody shed any tears for Microsoft even though they can make all the same arguements for integrating a browser, and not wanting a Netscape browser shipped with Windows.
"My iPod plays .mp3s just fine. I've even paid for some of them (as opposed to the ones I got by ripping my entire CD collection, which I also paid for)."
You can't buy an mp3 online for a song owned by a major music label. Buying a cd and ripping it is not a solution if you only want one song for $0.99
"Microsoft had a monopoly, but they did something different.
They threatened to raise the license fees or cancel the Windows licenses on Compaq if Compaq bundled Netscape on the desktop.
Apple has done nothing similar. It would be like Apple refusing to sell iPods to stores that also sold PCs, or raising the price of iPods to stores that also sold other MP3 players. Apple has done neither."
The EU is currently suing Microsft to open up their OS so other OS's can interoperate. Apple is refusing to allow interoperability in their monopoly market.
Apple has threatened to sue Real for selling songs with Fairplay DRM that they reverse engineered.
"While this anti-trust suit makes my blood boil, I think the best thing would be to counter sue, but not only Mr. Sluttery. Sue Microsoft because their "Pplays for Sure" does not play on my iPod. Sue Napster because their music does not play on my iPod (and their crapshit store doesn't even work on my Mac).
Come on you brave Americans, do it the good old American way: Countersue."
plays for sure WMA is not a monopoly (how many plays for sure files have been sold compared to iTMS files).
Napster is not a monopoly (how many sangs has Napster sold/rented compared to iTMS).
"Let's see, here's a song I've downloaded from iTMS... here's a blank CD. Mix, Burn, stick it in a Sony Discman... that's a portable device you know... and it's just fine."
cross converting a song to mp3 by first burning to a cd is a hassle, and degrades the music quality, as well as wastes a cd-r. The file should just work as is without circumventing the DRM, but Apple refuses to license Fairplay.
"Now, let's see... I go to Amazon.com, buy a CD, it costs a little more than on iTMS"
Straw man arguement. We're talking about buying a single song online, not buying a cd, which people here love to call a dying business model.
I'd love to try a subscription service and use it with my iPod, but I can't because Apple doesn't offer one, and Apple doesn't let anyone else sell me one that includes some sort of DRM.
"f the court were to force Apple to license FairPlay Apple would then have to assume the Support Cost of making sure that songs purchased on iTunes function on other players. This in my opinion is the main reason Apple has locked out other players."
If a song plays on iTunes on a pc, but not on a portable player, the person calls the maker of the portable player, not Apple. Therefore, the support costs are amost entirely on the maker of the portable player.
"think the DoJ judgements had very little effect at all on Microsoft,"
I disagree. The DoJ case forced Microsoft to stop making exclusive deals with OEM's so now OEM's can sell alternative operating systems for x86, and install non-microsoft products on Windows such as firefox.