Ok. You got me there. That was not an accurate comparison. But there are other examples. Like: "I've got $60 to spend on entertainment. Should I buy one game, or 3 to 4 DVD's?" Or: "$50 gives me unlimited broadband access for an entire month. Should I spend another $54.99 on a game, or just download it?"
I wasn't complaining about the price, I was disagreeing with the statement that it was relatively low. If I went and bought a Falcoln or VOODOO pc, I wouldn't complain about the price, but I certainly wouldn't call it relatively cheap. My main complaint is that people in the industry are losing their perspective. If you can buy 3 DVD's or 1 video game, which is a better value for your entertainment dollar?
Oh! It's all so clear now! In one single, well reasoned statement you've managed to clear up all the confusion about copyright, piracy, DRM, etc. Nevermind that copyright today is contrary to the expressed will of the people. Nevermind that copyright is an unnatural law, that there is no inherint right to distribustion of content, and that the world did just fine without it for thousands of years. Nevermind that most people violate copyright in some form everyday without even thinking about it. Nevermind the intent of copyright and fleecing that we get as citizens because copyright is more complex than the tax code. Thanks, man.
Copyright is a social contract that no longer benefits us as a society. The contract was broken long ago by the content "owners" and because it was broken we are now free to ignore it.
From the BBC article: "Despite the relatively low price of PC games, many gamers are still choosing to resort to piracy rather than pay for legitimate boxed copies," said Matt Pierce, publisher of the computer games magazine, PC Gamer.
Relatively low price? Relative to what? A movie? A CD? A car? Amazon has it for 54.99. That is anywhere from 25% to 50% of the cost of a brand new console, depending on the platform (and yes, I know it is a PC game). I'm really curious as to what world he is living in that could justify that price as "relatively low".
I used to be in favor of balance, and moderation, and rights of creators etc. Now, I have no such feelings. I watch as the copyright extremists win battle after battle by taking a stance that strengthening IP laws is not only necessary but a moral imperative. They use words like pirate and theft, while we say balance and culture and freedom of expression. They have a clear agenda and deep pockets while our oposition is under funded and constantly debating on what balance means.
Furthermore there seems to be no way we are ever going to get our legislators to understand the harm that increasing the power of is having. Legislators are free to enact these laws because the average person has no chance of understanding copyright.
The only way we are going to get any change is by adopting a similarly extreme position. By completly ignoring copyright law or deliberately acting against it. Bankrupt the content owners' legal fund and clog the courts with infringement cases. Act against the goverments position in favor of the will of the people. In short, we need revolution. That is the only way we will ever see positive change.
With Qwest, I get.05 a minute, in state and out of state, with no monthly fee, no monthly minimum, no per call minimum and a $20 cap. Once I reach $20 then it's free after that.
Even a 2 minture search turns up the Ipod 20 gig at $400 and the iriver at $369. If you're going to be throwing list prices around, at least be accurate.
And yes I know that you can get either one for cheaper, but gig for gig and feature for feature, the Ipod repeatedly eats the IHP's dust.
Mp3 might not have developed independantly, but I'm sure a similar one would have. The web/internet was crying out for a audio format with better compression. The only reason MP3 became as popular as it did was because Fraunhofer didn't start enforcing their patent until it was already fairly entrenched. In other words, it only spread because people thought it was free.
I do think that the MP3 patent is less harmful then the one in the article. At least it isn't trying to patent "A method by which digital audio files are compressed to around 90% of their original size." It's still the Intellectual Property equivilant of patenting a.doc format or.zip format.
The worst part is that these patents keep being passed, over and over.. we need some technical people in the patent offices, not temps making $7 an hour.
No, we need to ban software patents. Software patents have done absolutely nothing for innovation. Everyone getting sued is not someone who saw the idea and said "Hey! Great idea! I think I'll integrate that with my product." They've all been developers who come up with the idea independently, and then years (and years) later the company who was successful in marketing the product gets sued. All it has done is increase the amount of patent barratry.
And software is already protected by an insane amount of IP laws anyway. Not only is it protected for 90 years by copyright (if owned by a corp.) but trade secret law, and still for some unfathomable reason, you can patent it as well.
This would probably be a good point to provide a link to Richard Stallman's short story The Right to Read. Originally written in 1997, it's scarey how close it's getting to reality. If you haven't read it, please do so.
When I boot up my Mac OS
It's always with a sense of shame
I've always been the one to blame
Linux is what I long to do
But everything I really choose
Has one thing in common, too
Chorus:
It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
It's a sin
Every app I've ever run
Everything I ever do
Every game I've ever played
Everywhere site I'm going to
It's a sin
And Slashdot taught me how to be
A Linux God, and very l337
They didn't quite succeed
Linux is what I long to do
But everything I really choose
Has one thing in common, too
(Chorus)
Linus, forgive me, I tried not to do it
Burned a Knoppix CD, then I ignored it
Whatever you taught me, it didn't compile
Linus, you got me a brand new OS
But I still don't understand
So I boot up my Mac OS
Forever with a sense of shame
And I'm the one to blame
Linux is what I long to do
But everything I really choose
Has one thing in common, too
(Chorus)
It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
If the majority of copyright violations that the RIAA is concerned about involved decades-old music, you'd have a valid point. But unless you're arguing for a 2-week copyright term, I don't think "copyright extension" is relevant to this discussion.
It's just as illegal to download "decades old music" as it is to download music released less than "2-week"s ago. Just for kicks, imagine if everything over 28 years old (original copyright length +14 year extention) was in the public domain -- with new works being added every year. You don't think that would change the face of file sharing? Compare that with now, when nothing(slight hyperbole) created in my lifetime will ever be added to the PD. Plus, we won't get any "new" works (new but over 90 years old)in the PD until the year 2019 or so. And then only if copyright is not extended again.
I know people would still infringe copyrights and share newer stuff, but at least you could say "Only download music that is over 28 years old and you'll be safe."
I can't tell you the number of good things that don't go to market because of piracy* concerns. From software to books to music to even more novel forms of everything that simply can't happen
Yes! Stop producing anything! That'll show those nasty pirates!
Sorry, but being denied something that hasn't been created is less of a problem for me than being denied something that was created but is now inaccessable because of draconian copyright laws.
because people break the social contract that is copyright and steal. It's a shame really.
The social contract was broken a long time ago... by the content producers. When copyright was extended long past absurd lengths the writing was on the wall. The present day piracy was predicted way back in 1841. Here's a quote from that link (Thomas Macaulay speaking against copyright extension):
At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot.
do not under any circumstances buy an e-Book or other device that makes reading electronic books more convenient and nicer than paper books
Just out of curiosity, what ebook reader and ebook format do you use? I've been using a Sony Clie SJ22,and it been working rather well, except in sunlight. I am currently reading Destiny's Shield from the Baen Free library using the MobiPocket reader software.
Ok. Example: I run a website targeted toward seniors. When someone browses my website I collect their IP address. I then take that IP address down to the court and get a subpoena, alleging copyright infringement. I give that to the ISP, who then gives me their name, address, and phone number. I never press the court case, but I do hand the personal information over to my buddy who specializes in ripping off old people. Based on the areas of the website they visited, I can give him a good idea of what they are interested in.
The scarey part is that all you need is an IP address. You can make up the rest. If your goal is to get the personal information and you have no intention of actually filing a suit, then a counter suit isn't a big deterent.
Thomas McCaulay had this to say in 1841 when the issue of copyright extention was before the British parliament:
I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot.
I think that is a good idea, and you wouldn't even need to raise the rates. This would only work, though, if the artists were "Snapster Exclusives". If they go with someone other than Snapster, then Snapster pays $20 for their cd and then makes it available to everyone. If they become a "Snapster Exclusive" then Snapster offers a percentage of the download fee on sliding scale. Say: 20% right off and increasing to 50% as downloads increase.
OT, but since you brought it up...
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Good saying: If you are under 20 and already a Republican, then you have no heart. If you are over 30 and still a Democrat, then you have no brain.
So if they go after file sharers with at least 8 songs or more that still translates to a $1.2 million lawsuit. Now all they have to do is get people to cough up the dough and their members will be rolling in it!
Defenders of the recent FCC ruling said that critics were exaggerating its impact and that networks had to get bigger to continue providing free broadcast television.
You know what would make it easier to provide free broadcast television? Maybe some content entering the public domain. They need to relax their grip before they strangle themselves.
You're leaving out the part that this was only recently changed to say this after Coca Cola inc paid the church a great deal of money to change this.
The Mormon bible is revised all of the time and good Mormons are supposed to turn in or destroy all older copies.
So nice try, but taking caffeine was a sin until very recently.
That's really funny! I have to wonder if you are just trolling when you quote those myths as fact, or do you really believe them? You probably feel fairly smug about forwarding that cookie recipe from Neiman Marcus and are expecting that $300 from Bill Gates to come in the mail any day now as a thank you for participating in his email tracking program.
Bad citizens of a free society though? Absolutely. I'd be amazed if anyone even tried to counter that rationally.
I think you will be more likely to get rational comments when you start posting some.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok. You got me there. That was not an accurate comparison. But there are other examples. Like: "I've got $60 to spend on entertainment. Should I buy one game, or 3 to 4 DVD's?" Or: "$50 gives me unlimited broadband access for an entire month. Should I spend another $54.99 on a game, or just download it?"
I wasn't complaining about the price, I was disagreeing with the statement that it was relatively low. If I went and bought a Falcoln or VOODOO pc, I wouldn't complain about the price, but I certainly wouldn't call it relatively cheap. My main complaint is that people in the industry are losing their perspective. If you can buy 3 DVD's or 1 video game, which is a better value for your entertainment dollar?
Piracy is theft. Get over it.
Oh! It's all so clear now! In one single, well reasoned statement you've managed to clear up all the confusion about copyright, piracy, DRM, etc. Nevermind that copyright today is contrary to the expressed will of the people. Nevermind that copyright is an unnatural law, that there is no inherint right to distribustion of content, and that the world did just fine without it for thousands of years. Nevermind that most people violate copyright in some form everyday without even thinking about it. Nevermind the intent of copyright and fleecing that we get as citizens because copyright is more complex than the tax code. Thanks, man.
Copyright is a social contract that no longer benefits us as a society. The contract was broken long ago by the content "owners" and because it was broken we are now free to ignore it.
Copyright is theft. Get over it.
From the BBC article:
"Despite the relatively low price of PC games, many gamers are still choosing to resort to piracy rather than pay for legitimate boxed copies," said Matt Pierce, publisher of the computer games magazine, PC Gamer.
Relatively low price? Relative to what? A movie? A CD? A car? Amazon has it for 54.99. That is anywhere from 25% to 50% of the cost of a brand new console, depending on the platform (and yes, I know it is a PC game). I'm really curious as to what world he is living in that could justify that price as "relatively low".
I used to be in favor of balance, and moderation, and rights of creators etc. Now, I have no such feelings. I watch as the copyright extremists win battle after battle by taking a stance that strengthening IP laws is not only necessary but a moral imperative. They use words like pirate and theft, while we say balance and culture and freedom of expression. They have a clear agenda and deep pockets while our oposition is under funded and constantly debating on what balance means.
Furthermore there seems to be no way we are ever going to get our legislators to understand the harm that increasing the power of is having. Legislators are free to enact these laws because the average person has no chance of understanding copyright.
The only way we are going to get any change is by adopting a similarly extreme position. By completly ignoring copyright law or deliberately acting against it. Bankrupt the content owners' legal fund and clog the courts with infringement cases. Act against the goverments position in favor of the will of the people. In short, we need revolution. That is the only way we will ever see positive change.
With Qwest, I get .05 a minute, in state and out of state, with no monthly fee, no monthly minimum, no per call minimum and a $20 cap. Once I reach $20 then it's free after that.
Even a 2 minture search turns up the Ipod 20 gig at $400 and the iriver at $369. If you're going to be throwing list prices around, at least be accurate.
And yes I know that you can get either one for cheaper, but gig for gig and feature for feature, the Ipod repeatedly eats the IHP's dust.
I never download music anymore. When I want the latest CD I go right to my local library and rip it with CDex. No P2P software required!
Mp3 might not have developed independantly, but I'm sure a similar one would have. The web/internet was crying out for a audio format with better compression. The only reason MP3 became as popular as it did was because Fraunhofer didn't start enforcing their patent until it was already fairly entrenched. In other words, it only spread because people thought it was free.
.doc format or .zip format.
I do think that the MP3 patent is less harmful then the one in the article. At least it isn't trying to patent "A method by which digital audio files are compressed to around 90% of their original size." It's still the Intellectual Property equivilant of patenting a
The worst part is that these patents keep being passed, over and over.. we need some technical people in the patent offices, not temps making $7 an hour.
No, we need to ban software patents. Software patents have done absolutely nothing for innovation. Everyone getting sued is not someone who saw the idea and said "Hey! Great idea! I think I'll integrate that with my product." They've all been developers who come up with the idea independently, and then years (and years) later the company who was successful in marketing the product gets sued. All it has done is increase the amount of patent barratry.
And software is already protected by an insane amount of IP laws anyway. Not only is it protected for 90 years by copyright (if owned by a corp.) but trade secret law, and still for some unfathomable reason, you can patent it as well.
Oh well. Sucks to be us, I guess.
This would probably be a good point to provide a link to Richard Stallman's short story The Right to Read. Originally written in 1997, it's scarey how close it's getting to reality. If you haven't read it, please do so.
When I boot up my Mac OS
It's always with a sense of shame
I've always been the one to blame
Linux is what I long to do
But everything I really choose
Has one thing in common, too
Chorus:
It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
It's a sin
Every app I've ever run
Everything I ever do
Every game I've ever played
Everywhere site I'm going to
It's a sin
And Slashdot taught me how to be
A Linux God, and very l337
They didn't quite succeed
Linux is what I long to do
But everything I really choose
Has one thing in common, too
(Chorus)
Linus, forgive me, I tried not to do it
Burned a Knoppix CD, then I ignored it
Whatever you taught me, it didn't compile
Linus, you got me a brand new OS
But I still don't understand
So I boot up my Mac OS
Forever with a sense of shame
And I'm the one to blame
Linux is what I long to do
But everything I really choose
Has one thing in common, too
(Chorus)
It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
It's a, it's a, it's a, it's a sin
If the majority of copyright violations that the RIAA is concerned about involved decades-old music, you'd have a valid point. But unless you're arguing for a 2-week copyright term, I don't think "copyright extension" is relevant to this discussion.
It's just as illegal to download "decades old music" as it is to download music released less than "2-week"s ago. Just for kicks, imagine if everything over 28 years old (original copyright length +14 year extention) was in the public domain -- with new works being added every year. You don't think that would change the face of file sharing? Compare that with now, when nothing(slight hyperbole) created in my lifetime will ever be added to the PD. Plus, we won't get any "new" works (new but over 90 years old)in the PD until the year 2019 or so. And then only if copyright is not extended again.
I know people would still infringe copyrights and share newer stuff, but at least you could say "Only download music that is over 28 years old and you'll be safe."
Yes! Stop producing anything! That'll show those nasty pirates!
Sorry, but being denied something that hasn't been created is less of a problem for me than being denied something that was created but is now inaccessable because of draconian copyright laws.
because people break the social contract that is copyright and steal. It's a shame really.
The social contract was broken a long time ago... by the content producers. When copyright was extended long past absurd lengths the writing was on the wall. The present day piracy was predicted way back in 1841. Here's a quote from that link (Thomas Macaulay speaking against copyright extension): Seems to sum it up quite nicely.
"File-sharing" should be legal, because of "market realities".
do not under any circumstances buy an e-Book or other device that makes reading electronic books more convenient and nicer than paper books
Just out of curiosity, what ebook reader and ebook format do you use? I've been using a Sony Clie SJ22,and it been working rather well, except in sunlight. I am currently reading Destiny's Shield from the Baen Free library using the MobiPocket reader software.
Ok. Example: I run a website targeted toward seniors. When someone browses my website I collect their IP address. I then take that IP address down to the court and get a subpoena, alleging copyright infringement. I give that to the ISP, who then gives me their name, address, and phone number. I never press the court case, but I do hand the personal information over to my buddy who specializes in ripping off old people. Based on the areas of the website they visited, I can give him a good idea of what they are interested in.
The scarey part is that all you need is an IP address. You can make up the rest. If your goal is to get the personal information and you have no intention of actually filing a suit, then a counter suit isn't a big deterent.
I think that is a good idea, and you wouldn't even need to raise the rates. This would only work, though, if the artists were "Snapster Exclusives". If they go with someone other than Snapster, then Snapster pays $20 for their cd and then makes it available to everyone. If they become a "Snapster Exclusive" then Snapster offers a percentage of the download fee on sliding scale. Say: 20% right off and increasing to 50% as downloads increase.
Good saying: If you are under 20 and already a Republican, then you have no heart. If you are over 30 and still a Democrat, then you have no brain.
You can virtually guarantee that any "security holes" you might have will be found and plugged sooner!
So if they go after file sharers with at least 8 songs or more that still translates to a $1.2 million lawsuit. Now all they have to do is get people to cough up the dough and their members will be rolling in it!
Defenders of the recent FCC ruling said that critics were exaggerating its impact and that networks had to get bigger to continue providing free broadcast television.
You know what would make it easier to provide free broadcast television? Maybe some content entering the public domain. They need to relax their grip before they strangle themselves.
You're leaving out the part that this was only recently changed to say this after Coca Cola inc paid the church a great deal of money to change this. The Mormon bible is revised all of the time and good Mormons are supposed to turn in or destroy all older copies. So nice try, but taking caffeine was a sin until very recently.
That's really funny! I have to wonder if you are just trolling when you quote those myths as fact, or do you really believe them? You probably feel fairly smug about forwarding that cookie recipe from Neiman Marcus and are expecting that $300 from Bill Gates to come in the mail any day now as a thank you for participating in his email tracking program.
Bad citizens of a free society though? Absolutely. I'd be amazed if anyone even tried to counter that rationally.
I think you will be more likely to get rational comments when you start posting some.