Hmmm. OK, let's say I buy into this argument (which, for the record, I don't).
If he is arrestable for an offence in the US then surely the US should be doing everything reasonably possible to catch him, so they should have tried to extradite him first.
Now, if you're thinking of flying into, or through, the US you could check the extradition list (if there is such a thing) to see if you are "wanted" and make your decision as to whether to fly or not.
The problem now is that if the US set up extradition proceedings for all the people in the UK that they want to "talk to" there'd be no room on the flights for business and holiday makers as the UK Gov would roll over like the dog it is and just hand everyone over, regardless of the fact that the US has still to sign the papers to make it a two-way deal.
It'd be funny to see how the UK got treated it if tried to extradite any US citizens! How about the people responsible for the rendition flights, or the weapons flights? I'd love to see us try though as it would really show us the metal of our allies!
We used to have a bunch of neighbours who would all sit in their back garden and smoke for breakfast. The smoke would waft across into our garden and into our house (we're packing in pretty tight in south London!).
In the same way it is illegal to cause a noise nuisance (and the police can come and confiscate your stereo if you do!) it should be illegal to cause a smoke nuisance too!
As it turned out, they were a bunch of scummy chavs who skipped without paying their rent and stole a bunch of the furniture when they left. Honestly, I just don't miss them one bit.
The proprietor takes your credit card and address, and so knows where you are and that said activity is illegal. He's not just "letting you come to him"; he's actively engaging in trade with you.
So if a chap flew over to the UK from the US and used his hotel's internet connection to "online gamble" on this UK-based service, we should deny him access because he has a US credit card? Get real! Do you really want to not be able to use your credit card anywhere in the world other than your home town?
Obviously, not knowing the case it is possible that this chap has lived up to his name and been somewhat foolish in his business dealings, but unless there's some more meat in the sandwich that we are, as yet, unaware of I can't see how he can possibly get convicted so, for now, it just seems like a playground bully flexing his muscles to frighten the little kids!
But there is no doubt about it that his arrest was justified by what the law currently is.
Well, that's not true because I doubt it is justified.
Countries like China and Saudi Arabia don't like some of the content that appears on the Internet and specifically block access to those sites. Are you saying they are better than the US at protecting their citizens?
The Internet is "world-wide" (in a "webby" sort of way) and it is not possible to publish something on the internet and prevent a targetted group from seeing the content. If the US is so hell-bent on prohibiting access to such facilities as are available elsewhere in the world via the internet then they should fully sign up to the ranks of the oppressive regimes (rather than just dabbling, as of late!) and just prevent access from their end.
This just seems like a last gasp attempt to hold back the tide. They should apologise profusely to the fellow, beg forgiveness, and send him on his way forthwith.
I don't know the answer here, but if he paid for advertising (radio/newspaper/etc) adverts specifically in the US then lock the dimwit up and throw away the key.
If we knew (knows) that such activities are illegal in the US and specificaly didn't target any advertising at US citzens then I'd say there's no case. He might well have offered a service to the World at large, but where does the US get off on thinking they are The World.
I've probably broken a few of the US laws (I certainly started drinking before I was 21!). Perhaps I'd better not go to the US anymore, which is a shame 'cos it's a great place to visit.
I'm pretty pissed off with these sorts of border disputes. There was a chap at a Bank in London who had a blood test (the Banks are allowed to perform random blood tests - go figure!) and it was discovered that he had evidence of smoking dope and was dismissed. The guy'd been to Amsterdam for a Weekend for crissakes!
Next we'll have Germans getting speeding fines from driving on their unrestricked autobahns when they next land in the US!
I live in Surbiton and there's a chap around here who has one, and uses it to get to the train station, and for his onward journey from waterloo presumably to work. It does look seriously cool, but maybe no cooler than another fellow who uses roller blades.
If I had 5K to spare I might have one to gather dust next to my bicycle that I hardly use either!
By contrast, with space elevator, only the payload carrier, payload, and electric motors need to be lifted. This is vastly more energy efficient than a rocket.
Hmmmm. Isn't this comparison forgetting about the elevator mechanism itself. A bit like comparing airplanes to trains but leaving out the train tracks. I'm not saying that the (presumably) one time cost of shunting the ribbon and the counter weight (and whatever else) into orbit won't ultimately be better than rockets, but the setup costs need to be amortised over all the subsequent trips on the elevator.
That said, once the elevator is built, and assuming it can last long enough, it should easily pay for itself.
As a few other posters have said, could we use a space elevator for getting to and from the Moon's surface? Is that even possible? I dimly recall someone stating that the moon isn't suitable because it's difficult to get a geostationary orbit around it (gravity pull of the Moon is interfered with by that of the Earth and the Sun because it's simply not a large enough object).
How about having a space station around the Moon that has a coil of the best ribbon we can currently manufacture. Could it lower "stuff" to the surface in any reasonable manner, then wind the cable up again? It might be able to be held in some useful orbit just whilst the operation is happening, then be able to be parked in a cheaper orbit when not in use?
The string doesn't need to support it's own weight, it just has to be strong enough not to snap.
Er... that just doesn't sound right to me.
Let's look at the last (or first, depending on how you look at it) inch of string - just past where you are holding it. Sure, it has the weight of the weight to support, but it also has the wieght of the rest of the string. Each part of the string has to support all the weight of everything that's between it and the other end.
... and while we're at it, why not put a network of communications satalites around Mars too. Sure would be nice to be able to talk to our folks when they land, and comms satalites are old news - though shooting a bunch at Mars might be more interesting than just getting them in Earth orbit! Could we shoot a bunch at a time and spread them out when they arrive even?
Oh yes, lets build an space station in orbit around Mars before we go too. Sure would be nice to have a safe-ish haven closer to Mars and allow the use of a vehicle that is JUST for getting to/from the Martian surface rather than cobbling together something for the journey and the landing.
MIR was indeed a heap of junk, but it was a heap of junk in orbit. Sure, none of the parts would have fitted the ISS, but if it could be attached via an airlock it could offer a refuge in case of problems on the ISS, and being independent of ISS it shouldn't be affected by the same problems. It probably would have cost a bundle to re-furb it though!
Sure, the large shuttle tank is dropped off before orbit to burn up. What I was wondering was whether it would cost "a lot" more to boost it into orbit with the shuttle. So, assuming it doesn't cost too much more, you now have a large tank in orbit. I expect it is somewhat unpleasent inside the tank, but it is a source of raw materials. Why not us it, and a couple of others, as the fuel tanks for a "space ship" whose task is just to ferry back and to from the moon? Clean the insides sufficently to allow it to be used as accomodation, either on ISS or as part of a space station in orbit around the moon, or mars.
I know there must be reasons they don't, but is it just because it is more expensive now and the current budgets don't support it? I'm suggesting it may be cheaper in the long run not to waste the resources we currently let burn up. If we are going to be building on the moon, or mars, we need to take a lot of materiel with us, and at the moment that means hauling it up through the gravity well to orbit. To drag something 90% (or whatever) of the way, and then dump it seems short sighted.
Perhaps the last 10% costs more than the first 90% so it really isn't cost effective? But even if this is the case, when you do want to bring a large cylinder into space, you'll still have to drag it that first 90% of the way!
They would probably lower taxes, cancel all long term stuff (research, social security, infrastructure maintainance etc.) to increase their wages.
... Then they are unsuitable for the role! The idea behind making their salary be based on some (fixed!) multiple of the average wage is to STOP them voting themselves more money, or better pensions, etc. The concept of the people with their noses in the trough being able to decide on how full (and deep!) the trough is is the problem.
I like it. You could save a bunch of money by always putting the runners up in the voting into the 3rd House too, and they'd have a ball removing the stupid legislation.
In the UK I've become so disallusioned by the whole political process that I'm thinking about what Groucho Marx once said about some club that asked him to join. He said something about not wanting to be a member of any club that would accept him as a member. Turn that around a bit and smear politics all over it's shoes and you get...
The desire to be a politician should preclude you from becoming one.
I reckon you could have system a bit like Jury Service, where you get approached to become a politician for some time period. The backroom boys (Civil Servants) who, as far as I'm aware, are mostly the same regardless of the Government will provide continuity and the necessary knowledge and skills and the Parilament Service chaps and chappesses can use common sense to decide policy without having to worry about elections. You could set up some selection committee that decided upon a set of conditions.
The people should be of a certain age - say over 30 - so they have some real world experience and not just the idologies of youth.
The people should probably have at least "average" intelligence. How do we test that? I don't know, but a simple IQ test would be a start.
They should be "workers" rather than "shirkers", so pick people who have jobs (or who had jobs if they are retired)
So many stupid things are done, and so much money wasted, as part of the whole election process that it saddens me when the UK Public fall for it time after time. We are paying these jokers to try and fool us into voting for them!
On top of that, we pay nearly half the people in parliament to make life difficult for the other half. If you are setting up the Cabinet (the people who run the various offices within the Gov) how come all the "best people" are in the same party? They should pick the best people regardless of party.
They voted themselves index linked pensions - I reckon that the wages/salaries for Politicians should be linked (eg twice, 2.5 times, etc) to the national average, so if they want a pay rise they should do things to try and make the average salary better, and not just vote themselves more money!
I would like to see the "cost of government" figure published every year. How much have we been paying for these jokers to spy on us each year. Compare this Gov with the previous one - are we really getting value for money when the Labour Gov has 3 times the No of "advisors" than the last Gov (and not holding them up as a great example!). These same advisors who wait until there's BIG NEWS DAYS to release painful information in the hope that no one will notice.
I just can't see how we can ever trust the Gov to not try and screw us over. Rather than trying to run the country for us, they just seem hell bent on staying in power for as long as possible.
OK, so assuming there's fuel left for the ion-engine, why not put it into a self-maintaining lunar orbit until someone gets up there and we can harvest the thing for it's spare parts. I always wonder about the destruction of items we spent so much money on launching into orbit. It just seems stupid.
For example, Skylab and Mir. Especially Mir. It had air scrubbers and all the other stuff you need for a space station. Why not arrange to have it join up with ISS. It could be refurbished and be a seperate entity as an emergency shelter, with all it's own systems. Even if you only used the solar panels? Just doesn't make sense when getting stuff up there in the first place is so expensive.
For example, the large tank on the shuttle. Couldn't it be taken right into orbit and parked there? Huge, presumably air tight, cylinders? Even if you didn't (or couldn't) convert them into some sort of habitat or storage attached to ISS, why not strap on some boosters and fire them off to the moon. Sure would be nice to have a bunch of scrap metal to play with when we finally get there?
I guess it all justs costs too much to do it now, and everyone would rather pay more to do it later!
Interestingly, I pretty much agree with everything you say here, but the conclusion I draw is that the recording companies/movie companies are just a bunch of sharks. It doesn't make me think it's OK to take the content without paying. Ferraris are really expensive and they make too much profit, so it's OK for me to just take one? No.
What we should be doing is campaigning to get the prices reduced. I do this by not buying CDs or DVDs if they are more than 10 UKP.
I'd agree with you on the 5 bucks too. I reckon if the recording companies halved the price they'd sell more than twice as many!
By your definition it's just as much stealing to not buy the CD as it is to pirate it. Either way I'm depriving him of the exact same income and therefore either both are stealing or neither. It is not logically consistent to treat them differently under your definition.
By your own use of langauge - "not buy the CD" vs "pirate it" - you refute your own statement. In the real world, "not buying" a cup of coffee is not the same as having a cup of coffee and doing a runner without paying. Obviously not a good analogy as it's harder to copy coffee, but in my mind it's the same deal, especially if they had free refils - who have you actually deprived of coffee?... and you wouldn't have had the coffee if you had to pay, so you haven't deprived anyone of the price of the coffee either. Excellent. Free Coffee for everyone. How soon before shops stop handing out coffee?
I do see your point though. The artist has performed the "art" once, and why should they get paid for it over and over. I think part of why the sales model came about is because it is more expensive to get the artist to play for you than to buy a copy of the music. You win, because you have a copy of the music you like at less than the cost of hiring the artist. The artist wins because they can sell multiple copies of their music at lower prices. The problems arise when people decide they no longer want to play the game and are jealous of the apparent riches showered on the successful artists. But what of the less successful artists, and why shouldn't a popular artist get rich in small increments if enough people like their art?
I think the pirates who really think they have a right to other people's art, for free, are just being selfish, but it's not helped by the money grabbing record company execs who repeatedly release old 'art' on new media for top prices. Look at the Beatles back catalog and you'll see the most expensive CDs in the store. Surely the recording companies made their money the first time round - they are really not doing themselves any favours there!
Hmmm.
As an author, musician, programmer, or whatever style of artist, it must be possible to be paid for the work you do, or no one would do it. Is it wrong to copy a book? I guess we'd disagree on that, but I can't see how it could be reasoned that it is OK?
If an artist makes a living from selling copies of their work, and you don't pay for your copy, then you are depriving them of their living.
I guess I'm not coming up with a good enough explanation of why I think it is plain wrong, and your explanations haven't convinced me that there is any "right". Maybe it's the new religion, 'cos your position is just as unfathomable to me as I suspect mine is to you!
I can't ethically compel someone to do work for me, but should someone be able to ethically compel me to pay for their work?
So you're saying that if someone comes round to your house to re-shingle the roof or paint some doors that you are under no obligation to pay for the work afterwards? I must be missing something because that just sound so stupid.
I would agree that it would be bad for musicians (for example) to be able to play outside your house uninvited and then ask you to pay for the music, but if you go ask for them to turn up and play, you'd better be willing to pay afterwards or have some way to protect your windows from projectiles!
The musician has been paid
Hmmm. So the first person who buys a copy of the CD pays their 10 bucks and the musician has now been paid? There'd be no musicians. I grant you that most of the problems stem from the middlemen who all want their pound of flesh, but the distributors are there to make it easier for the musicians to spread their wares. In the beginning if you wanted to hear some music you went and found the musician and he played for you. The music on the CD, or the mp3 on the website, is an extension of that. It allows you to hear the music more cheaply than hiring the musician, and it allows the musician to increase his earning potential to make it worth their while being musicians.
I like free stuff as much as the next man, but unless the musician (or the musicians representatives) have offered the music up for free download you are depriving him (or his representatives) of some income. They are being deprived of something, so it is stealing.
On the other side of the coin, I agree that the whole DRM debarcle is stupid. The record companies are so set in their ways that all they can see is that they need to protect the old way of doing business. Unfortunately for them, it is doomed and they'd be far better off getting some people in who have a clue and working out a new way that uses the new mediums.
Or he should have been excluded from participating in his culture until he came up with some money.
I'd really like to go to Glastonbury next year, but I can't afford it. Perhaps the Government should subsidise my trip so I can take part in the culture?
If I want something, I save up until I have enough money, or I borrow the money, then I buy it. What you are saying sounds remarkably like the Baby's Rules of Ownership:-
If it's blue, it's mine
If it's shiney, it's mine
If it makes a noise when squeezed, it's mine
If I can see it, it's mine
If you have it, but I want it, it's mine ... er... profit?
Not sure I agree with you here. Sure, the artist isn't actually losing existing money by your light fingered brother's purloining of the content, but had your brother purchased said items the artist (and the rest of the chain from shop keepers to recording labels/studios/etc) would have got a share of the monies.
Just because it is easy to copy music it doesn't make it right to do so. The problem, as I see it, is that it is (IMHO) reasonably legitimate to be able to copy music/films/etc that you have purchased, which makes it really diffult to stop people copying the content without paying.
Sure, the artists aren't fiscally worse off after your brother's shenanigans, but someone's lost something. Do you recall the case of the programmer working in a bank somewhere in the US who thought it'd be a blinder to take all the rounding errors, the 0.002's and 0.004's of cents, and transfer them to his own bank account. No one actually lost anything as those "roundings" were discarded right? His bank account very quickly had a very large amount of money in it (unless it was an urban myth of course!). It turns out it was someone's money after all, and he had been stealing it!
In heavy industry you are more likely to see a safety feature like "both of your hands must be in the boxes and you must press both buttons to activate the machine that'd make you into paste".
A mate told me about such a machine - ie must be pressing two buttons before the machine will operate so you MUST have your hands clear - but some bozo figured out you could save a bunch of time by wedging in one of the buttons with cardboard so you only have to press one button.
However much we try to make things idiot proof, nature can always counter with a better idiot!
Slashdot Mirror
If he is arrestable for an offence in the US then surely the US should be doing everything reasonably possible to catch him, so they should have tried to extradite him first.
Now, if you're thinking of flying into, or through, the US you could check the extradition list (if there is such a thing) to see if you are "wanted" and make your decision as to whether to fly or not.
The problem now is that if the US set up extradition proceedings for all the people in the UK that they want to "talk to" there'd be no room on the flights for business and holiday makers as the UK Gov would roll over like the dog it is and just hand everyone over, regardless of the fact that the US has still to sign the papers to make it a two-way deal.
It'd be funny to see how the UK got treated it if tried to extradite any US citizens! How about the people responsible for the rendition flights, or the weapons flights? I'd love to see us try though as it would really show us the metal of our allies!
We used to have a bunch of neighbours who would all sit in their back garden and smoke for breakfast. The smoke would waft across into our garden and into our house (we're packing in pretty tight in south London!).
In the same way it is illegal to cause a noise nuisance (and the police can come and confiscate your stereo if you do!) it should be illegal to cause a smoke nuisance too!
As it turned out, they were a bunch of scummy chavs who skipped without paying their rent and stole a bunch of the furniture when they left. Honestly, I just don't miss them one bit.
So if a chap flew over to the UK from the US and used his hotel's internet connection to "online gamble" on this UK-based service, we should deny him access because he has a US credit card? Get real! Do you really want to not be able to use your credit card anywhere in the world other than your home town?
Obviously, not knowing the case it is possible that this chap has lived up to his name and been somewhat foolish in his business dealings, but unless there's some more meat in the sandwich that we are, as yet, unaware of I can't see how he can possibly get convicted so, for now, it just seems like a playground bully flexing his muscles to frighten the little kids!
Well, that's not true because I doubt it is justified.
Countries like China and Saudi Arabia don't like some of the content that appears on the Internet and specifically block access to those sites. Are you saying they are better than the US at protecting their citizens?
The Internet is "world-wide" (in a "webby" sort of way) and it is not possible to publish something on the internet and prevent a targetted group from seeing the content. If the US is so hell-bent on prohibiting access to such facilities as are available elsewhere in the world via the internet then they should fully sign up to the ranks of the oppressive regimes (rather than just dabbling, as of late!) and just prevent access from their end.
This just seems like a last gasp attempt to hold back the tide. They should apologise profusely to the fellow, beg forgiveness, and send him on his way forthwith.
Er ... Did he?
I don't know the answer here, but if he paid for advertising (radio/newspaper/etc) adverts specifically in the US then lock the dimwit up and throw away the key.
If we knew (knows) that such activities are illegal in the US and specificaly didn't target any advertising at US citzens then I'd say there's no case. He might well have offered a service to the World at large, but where does the US get off on thinking they are The World.
I've probably broken a few of the US laws (I certainly started drinking before I was 21!). Perhaps I'd better not go to the US anymore, which is a shame 'cos it's a great place to visit.
I'm pretty pissed off with these sorts of border disputes. There was a chap at a Bank in London who had a blood test (the Banks are allowed to perform random blood tests - go figure!) and it was discovered that he had evidence of smoking dope and was dismissed. The guy'd been to Amsterdam for a Weekend for crissakes!
Next we'll have Germans getting speeding fines from driving on their unrestricked autobahns when they next land in the US!
If I had 5K to spare I might have one to gather dust next to my bicycle that I hardly use either!
It's all dressed up with no where to go.
Hmmmm. Isn't this comparison forgetting about the elevator mechanism itself. A bit like comparing airplanes to trains but leaving out the train tracks. I'm not saying that the (presumably) one time cost of shunting the ribbon and the counter weight (and whatever else) into orbit won't ultimately be better than rockets, but the setup costs need to be amortised over all the subsequent trips on the elevator.
That said, once the elevator is built, and assuming it can last long enough, it should easily pay for itself.
As a few other posters have said, could we use a space elevator for getting to and from the Moon's surface? Is that even possible? I dimly recall someone stating that the moon isn't suitable because it's difficult to get a geostationary orbit around it (gravity pull of the Moon is interfered with by that of the Earth and the Sun because it's simply not a large enough object).
How about having a space station around the Moon that has a coil of the best ribbon we can currently manufacture. Could it lower "stuff" to the surface in any reasonable manner, then wind the cable up again? It might be able to be held in some useful orbit just whilst the operation is happening, then be able to be parked in a cheaper orbit when not in use?
Er ... that just doesn't sound right to me.
Let's look at the last (or first, depending on how you look at it) inch of string - just past where you are holding it. Sure, it has the weight of the weight to support, but it also has the wieght of the rest of the string. Each part of the string has to support all the weight of everything that's between it and the other end.
I call your bluff!
Oh yes, lets build an space station in orbit around Mars before we go too. Sure would be nice to have a safe-ish haven closer to Mars and allow the use of a vehicle that is JUST for getting to/from the Martian surface rather than cobbling together something for the journey and the landing.
Sure, the large shuttle tank is dropped off before orbit to burn up. What I was wondering was whether it would cost "a lot" more to boost it into orbit with the shuttle. So, assuming it doesn't cost too much more, you now have a large tank in orbit. I expect it is somewhat unpleasent inside the tank, but it is a source of raw materials. Why not us it, and a couple of others, as the fuel tanks for a "space ship" whose task is just to ferry back and to from the moon? Clean the insides sufficently to allow it to be used as accomodation, either on ISS or as part of a space station in orbit around the moon, or mars.
I know there must be reasons they don't, but is it just because it is more expensive now and the current budgets don't support it? I'm suggesting it may be cheaper in the long run not to waste the resources we currently let burn up. If we are going to be building on the moon, or mars, we need to take a lot of materiel with us, and at the moment that means hauling it up through the gravity well to orbit. To drag something 90% (or whatever) of the way, and then dump it seems short sighted.
Perhaps the last 10% costs more than the first 90% so it really isn't cost effective? But even if this is the case, when you do want to bring a large cylinder into space, you'll still have to drag it that first 90% of the way!
I like it. You could save a bunch of money by always putting the runners up in the voting into the 3rd House too, and they'd have a ball removing the stupid legislation.
In the UK I've become so disallusioned by the whole political process that I'm thinking about what Groucho Marx once said about some club that asked him to join. He said something about not wanting to be a member of any club that would accept him as a member. Turn that around a bit and smear politics all over it's shoes and you get ...
The desire to be a politician should preclude you from becoming one.
I reckon you could have system a bit like Jury Service, where you get approached to become a politician for some time period. The backroom boys (Civil Servants) who, as far as I'm aware, are mostly the same regardless of the Government will provide continuity and the necessary knowledge and skills and the Parilament Service chaps and chappesses can use common sense to decide policy without having to worry about elections. You could set up some selection committee that decided upon a set of conditions.
The people should be of a certain age - say over 30 - so they have some real world experience and not just the idologies of youth.
The people should probably have at least "average" intelligence. How do we test that? I don't know, but a simple IQ test would be a start.
They should be "workers" rather than "shirkers", so pick people who have jobs (or who had jobs if they are retired)
So many stupid things are done, and so much money wasted, as part of the whole election process that it saddens me when the UK Public fall for it time after time. We are paying these jokers to try and fool us into voting for them!
On top of that, we pay nearly half the people in parliament to make life difficult for the other half. If you are setting up the Cabinet (the people who run the various offices within the Gov) how come all the "best people" are in the same party? They should pick the best people regardless of party.
They voted themselves index linked pensions - I reckon that the wages/salaries for Politicians should be linked (eg twice, 2.5 times, etc) to the national average, so if they want a pay rise they should do things to try and make the average salary better, and not just vote themselves more money!
I would like to see the "cost of government" figure published every year. How much have we been paying for these jokers to spy on us each year. Compare this Gov with the previous one - are we really getting value for money when the Labour Gov has 3 times the No of "advisors" than the last Gov (and not holding them up as a great example!). These same advisors who wait until there's BIG NEWS DAYS to release painful information in the hope that no one will notice.
I just can't see how we can ever trust the Gov to not try and screw us over. Rather than trying to run the country for us, they just seem hell bent on staying in power for as long as possible.
For example, Skylab and Mir. Especially Mir. It had air scrubbers and all the other stuff you need for a space station. Why not arrange to have it join up with ISS. It could be refurbished and be a seperate entity as an emergency shelter, with all it's own systems. Even if you only used the solar panels? Just doesn't make sense when getting stuff up there in the first place is so expensive.
For example, the large tank on the shuttle. Couldn't it be taken right into orbit and parked there? Huge, presumably air tight, cylinders? Even if you didn't (or couldn't) convert them into some sort of habitat or storage attached to ISS, why not strap on some boosters and fire them off to the moon. Sure would be nice to have a bunch of scrap metal to play with when we finally get there?
I guess it all justs costs too much to do it now, and everyone would rather pay more to do it later!
What we should be doing is campaigning to get the prices reduced. I do this by not buying CDs or DVDs if they are more than 10 UKP.
I'd agree with you on the 5 bucks too. I reckon if the recording companies halved the price they'd sell more than twice as many!
By your own use of langauge - "not buy the CD" vs "pirate it" - you refute your own statement. In the real world, "not buying" a cup of coffee is not the same as having a cup of coffee and doing a runner without paying. Obviously not a good analogy as it's harder to copy coffee, but in my mind it's the same deal, especially if they had free refils - who have you actually deprived of coffee? ... and you wouldn't have had the coffee if you had to pay, so you haven't deprived anyone of the price of the coffee either. Excellent. Free Coffee for everyone. How soon before shops stop handing out coffee?
I do see your point though. The artist has performed the "art" once, and why should they get paid for it over and over. I think part of why the sales model came about is because it is more expensive to get the artist to play for you than to buy a copy of the music. You win, because you have a copy of the music you like at less than the cost of hiring the artist. The artist wins because they can sell multiple copies of their music at lower prices. The problems arise when people decide they no longer want to play the game and are jealous of the apparent riches showered on the successful artists. But what of the less successful artists, and why shouldn't a popular artist get rich in small increments if enough people like their art?
I think the pirates who really think they have a right to other people's art, for free, are just being selfish, but it's not helped by the money grabbing record company execs who repeatedly release old 'art' on new media for top prices. Look at the Beatles back catalog and you'll see the most expensive CDs in the store. Surely the recording companies made their money the first time round - they are really not doing themselves any favours there!
As an author, musician, programmer, or whatever style of artist, it must be possible to be paid for the work you do, or no one would do it. Is it wrong to copy a book? I guess we'd disagree on that, but I can't see how it could be reasoned that it is OK?
If an artist makes a living from selling copies of their work, and you don't pay for your copy, then you are depriving them of their living.
I guess I'm not coming up with a good enough explanation of why I think it is plain wrong, and your explanations haven't convinced me that there is any "right". Maybe it's the new religion, 'cos your position is just as unfathomable to me as I suspect mine is to you!
I can't ethically compel someone to do work for me, but should someone be able to ethically compel me to pay for their work?
So you're saying that if someone comes round to your house to re-shingle the roof or paint some doors that you are under no obligation to pay for the work afterwards? I must be missing something because that just sound so stupid.
I would agree that it would be bad for musicians (for example) to be able to play outside your house uninvited and then ask you to pay for the music, but if you go ask for them to turn up and play, you'd better be willing to pay afterwards or have some way to protect your windows from projectiles!
The musician has been paid
Hmmm. So the first person who buys a copy of the CD pays their 10 bucks and the musician has now been paid? There'd be no musicians. I grant you that most of the problems stem from the middlemen who all want their pound of flesh, but the distributors are there to make it easier for the musicians to spread their wares. In the beginning if you wanted to hear some music you went and found the musician and he played for you. The music on the CD, or the mp3 on the website, is an extension of that. It allows you to hear the music more cheaply than hiring the musician, and it allows the musician to increase his earning potential to make it worth their while being musicians.
I like free stuff as much as the next man, but unless the musician (or the musicians representatives) have offered the music up for free download you are depriving him (or his representatives) of some income. They are being deprived of something, so it is stealing.
On the other side of the coin, I agree that the whole DRM debarcle is stupid. The record companies are so set in their ways that all they can see is that they need to protect the old way of doing business. Unfortunately for them, it is doomed and they'd be far better off getting some people in who have a clue and working out a new way that uses the new mediums.
I'd really like to go to Glastonbury next year, but I can't afford it. Perhaps the Government should subsidise my trip so I can take part in the culture?
If I want something, I save up until I have enough money, or I borrow the money, then I buy it. What you are saying sounds remarkably like the Baby's Rules of Ownership :-
If it's blue, it's mine
... er ... profit?
If it's shiney, it's mine
If it makes a noise when squeezed, it's mine
If I can see it, it's mine
If you have it, but I want it, it's mine
Not sure I agree with you here. Sure, the artist isn't actually losing existing money by your light fingered brother's purloining of the content, but had your brother purchased said items the artist (and the rest of the chain from shop keepers to recording labels/studios/etc) would have got a share of the monies.
Just because it is easy to copy music it doesn't make it right to do so. The problem, as I see it, is that it is (IMHO) reasonably legitimate to be able to copy music/films/etc that you have purchased, which makes it really diffult to stop people copying the content without paying.
Sure, the artists aren't fiscally worse off after your brother's shenanigans, but someone's lost something. Do you recall the case of the programmer working in a bank somewhere in the US who thought it'd be a blinder to take all the rounding errors, the 0.002's and 0.004's of cents, and transfer them to his own bank account. No one actually lost anything as those "roundings" were discarded right? His bank account very quickly had a very large amount of money in it (unless it was an urban myth of course!). It turns out it was someone's money after all, and he had been stealing it!
A mate told me about such a machine - ie must be pressing two buttons before the machine will operate so you MUST have your hands clear - but some bozo figured out you could save a bunch of time by wedging in one of the buttons with cardboard so you only have to press one button.
However much we try to make things idiot proof, nature can always counter with a better idiot!
Spelt .. Spelled ... let's call the whole thing off!
Now if you're gonna fight you'll have to go outside!
[Oh for the love of god]
do I get expelled?
Won't someone think of the chiltren?
Salad! On slashdot? The very idea!
We like MEAT! MEAT I tells ya, MEAT!
Often mechanically recovered and made into patties.
And this on the day when the BBC run this story on inbreeding in Norfolk. Just makes me laugh the socks off my 6-toed feet!