Agreed. The one doesn't follow from the other. Protecting books, music, movies, or other content doesn't impact "democractic speech" any more than requiring a subscription to a magazine or making someone buy a newspaper impacted free speech pre-internet.
In fact, one could easily argue that the way the NY TImes hides content behind registrations and passwords has more impact on democractic speech. DRM in this case is just another scare word. Surprised terrorists and child porn were not mentioned as well.
Regardless, anyone who chooses is free to publish that which they will, and charge for it, or not, and protect it, or not, just as we're free to determine if those conditions are worthwhile, or not...
The only "Natural Right" you have is to be eaten by that tiger in the corner. Other than that, ALL "rights" are artificial constructs.
Given such, I tend to side with the people who put in the years, talent, energy, and money, and take the risks associated with creating that which we all enjoy, and without whom those works would not exist. If they want to give said work away then fine. If, like most of us, they need to feed the kids and pay the rent, then you have the "right" to respect their wishes and pay for their music if you find it to be of value.
In a utopian society, EVERYTHING would be freely shared. Unfortunately, I don't live in that world, and neither do you...
"Where the fuck is my $5 CD I was promised in the late 80s? I don't mean the bargain bin. How is it possible that 20 years later we still have the same prices as we did then?"
Factor in two decades worth of inflation, and you ARE paying $5 for a CD. (Actually, prices for new releases have DECLINED over that period.)
I also think you're over-generalizing when you say, "They will just have to live with the fame, fans, and the millions they already made." Probably the top 5% of the bands playing music have made "millions". Like any field of endeavour, some make millions, some make nothing, and the vast majority simply manage to make ends meet.
All in all, it's oddly appropriate that you mention Brittney Spears, as, like her music, your arguments sound okay, but tend to lack any substance whatsoever.
Actually, Amazon's personalization and recommendation system fundamentally sucks. Buy one book on Java and your recommendations fill up with them. Buy the latest album or book by a specific singer or author, and suddenly every album or book they ever sang or wrote shows up, no matter that you already own them. Buy a copy of LOTR, and apparently you also need every hardbound and paperback version ever published.
What I'd really like there is a browser's "Clear History" command so I could zap it all at once, just so I'd have a chance to see some new books...
Seems to me you're neglecting the cost/benefit ratio. If it costs X to fix a problem experienced by everyone, and it only costs Y to compensate the N number of people who actually suffer, and X is greater than Y, then why fix it? Cheaper to simply live with it and pay 'em off.
If, on the other hand, each of those N people can hit you for a significant sum, then you have an incentive to actually spend those dollars up front.
While I do think we have too many "for profit" lawsuits, and I kind of like the idea of liability caps, I dislike the fact that it "lowers the bar" and lets the bean counters run more risks.
We give the Minutemen rifles that shoot chips instead of slugs, post 'em on the border, and tell them they can shoot as many illegals as they like. They'll love it.
"If what you say is true, this produces something like what economists call a "perverse incentive."
Precisely. Why do you think the "war" on terror is now being called "the long war" and likened to the Cold War? Because as long as the "war" continues, extraordinary measures will continue to be "needed".
Huh. So then, your original statement that 'these "content creators" have taken and used other peoples ideas, or "Intellectual Property" if you will, without consent to create their works', is false.
Because either all of those "ideas" are protected and can't be stolen, as you've just said, or they haven't been taken at all, in which case your "problem" is solved.
Fundamentally, your arguments boil down to the "Photoshop is too expensive for me" rationalization. And since it's too expensive and you'd never buy it anyway, it must be okay to steal it.
Yes, Adobe would have never sold PS to you. But by stealing and using it, you didn't pay $99 for PS Elements. Nor did you buy Paintshop Pro, nor any of the plethora of shareware products out there. Heck, you didn't even "support" open source.
Back to Gigli. By downloading it you didn't pay $19.95 for it. Nor did you pay $4.95 at the bargin bin, $3.99 for PPV, $3.0 at Blockbuster, from NetFlix, or $1.99 at the grocery store. You didn't even wait for it to be "free" on TV or cable, or check out that paid copy from the library. Nor did you do any of those things that evening for another movie you might have liked more, nor did you go to the movies, buy and read a book, and so on.
Which is why rationalizing that your actions regarding Gigli had no impact are just that. You had plenty of alternatives. But they weren't "convenient" and weren't at a price you were willing to pay.
Face it. Whenever you want whatever it is you want, and don't want to pay for it, in your mind your actions are automatically "justified"...
So? Ideas are plentiful, worth a dime a dozen, and that they're probably overpriced even then.
Hey! I have an idea. Let's create the world's best web browser. Cool. And now where are we? Well... nowhere. Now, let's talk about people who did just that, and the dozens upon dozens of man-years it took to write FireFox and get it to the point where it is now.
Hey! I have an idea. Let's write a book about wizards and elves and hobbits. And now that we're done with the idea, why don't we talk about JRRT, who spent the better part of his life actually creating that story and that world and those characters.
Hey! I have an idea. Let's make it into a movie! But how many people had that idea, and did nothing about it? Now let's talk about Peter Jackson, and the, what... nine years it took to actually make that film trilogy.
The fact is that IP law is NOT and never has been about protecting ideas. It is, however, about protecting a specific implementation of those ideas, and about protecting the people who did so. It's about protecting and encouraging that time and effort and skill and talent and investment.
That's why all this talk about "ideas" is nothing more than a straw man, and again little more than an attempt to trivialize the situation. Actually write that book or software, or produce that movie, do the work and spend the years and resources needed to implement an "idea", and then--and only then--will we have something to talk about.
It all comes down to the AdWords algorithm and its intent, which isn't to help Luis OR Amazon, but to simply maximize profit for Google.
I think this either/or is leaving a few major participants out of the equation: Google's users.
Profits notwithstanding, the primary intent of the AdWords algorithm is to provide relevant content to the user, including relevant ads. Present irrelevant content and ads, and the users disappear, and the revenue does likewise..
Whatever happen to the time-honored tradition of "volume discounts"? It's probably not "fair" that Walmart can get better prices on goods than the local mom-and-pop, but they do.
But in both cases (WM/Google) the cost of doing business with a smaller supplier/advertiser is a higher percentage off the potential income. Spend more with Google, and you get better discounts that reflect that fact you're making them more money with basically the same amount of overhead (billing, etc.).
And I've always thought this was a BAD idea for a long time, as it's the first step to killing off a vital portion of the internet.
News groups, discussion groups, SIGs, PACs, online communities, word/joke/whatever-of-the-day mailing lists, notification lists, and so on, all depend on free access to email. This is especially true for sites and services run by individuals, non-profits, and other organizations who are not businesses and usually have a hard enough time keeping their doors (sites) open.
Some businesses could pay for it, but do you think for a moment that those costs are not going to be passed on?
And stopping spam? Please. Hackers will setup their own servers in places that don't charge such taxes, or take over existing boxes in places that do, and in either case not pay a dime.
Besides, what do you want to bet that any email sent by the government will be exempt from such a tax? Of course they'll be free to spam us.
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid idea. As others have said, it's nothing more than a shortsighted money grab, and we're the ones who'll be punished for it... in more ways than one.
And people are ready, willing, and able to go to school, learn, and work. Here in the US these days it seems that the highest aspiration, and expectation, is winning American Idol...
Even disregarding the old quote that says a "picture is worth a thousand words", the web is a visual medium. We don't just read it, we see it. In fact, research has shown that most of us simply scan pages first, looking for items of interest, and only reading deeper once something has attracted our attention.
As such, you do realize that color and graphics, style and presentation, choice of images, all contribute to the tone and meaning and emotion of what you're trying to say? Choosen wisely, they can dramatically increase your probability of successfully communicating your message. Design can give back the shades of nuance and subtlety lost in the translation to another medium.
Choose them poorly, and they, like bad spelling and grammar, can sabotage your efforts. In fact, flame wars on Slashdot illustrate precisely why words alone fail to communicate, as they lack the visual and audio cues we reply upon to discern meaning and intent.
In fact, such choices gage not only the professionalism of a given site, but also tend to reflect the professionalism of its owners. What can one gather from a site that's scattered and disorganized and amateurish and filled with errors? Do such traits carry over into their other work, as well?
Like it or not, fair or not, presentation is important, and you will be judged on your ability to execute it successfully.
"No reason?" Sorry, but it's obvious that you're the one who doesn't understand how the rest of the world communicates.
"File sharing is no different than what many people did in the 80's when they made tapes of music and shared it."
I beg to differ here. Making a copy of a tape or record and giving it to a friend is "sharing". Making 10,000 copies and giving them to 10,000 friends [sic] is "publishing".
Moreover, sharing had a built-in limitation because it had a cost: the tape. How many high-school kids in the '80s bought 10,000 tapes, made copies, and then just gave them away to strangers?
"...this creates a very unstable situation, since the Administration can leak (I mean, "selectively declassify") information any old time they feel like it..."
Or, conversely, they can simply classify any inconvenient fact, program, operation, or other evidence of wrongdoing and then dare any member of the press not already in jail to report it.
Like it or not, this is indeed treading on the "slippery slope".
Spot off. If that were an OS X machine that required a password to do an install most users would type it automatically anyway.
And you really have to ask, why is an instant-messaging text system letting you send ANY files in the first place? Want to send me a file? Then send it to my email account where the virus scanners at least have a crack at it.
And I can just as easily blame "cool" creeping featurism in the IM client. "Hey, look, now we can send files too!"
In all fairness, have you ever seen the amount of work that has to be done to drill, cut, string, and prep a building for the type of controlled demolition the tinfoil folk are insisting had to occur? You'd think maybe a few people would have noticed...
Of course, you could do it that way. Then again, you just have to wonder why tons of burning jet fuel wouldn't detonate tons of propositioned explosives...
Ever considered the amount of data that has to be churned through to build your average custom My Yahoo home page? Especially one with a ton of custom news items, stocks, local weather, local movie listings, and so on?
Major web sites are just a "little" more complex than your typical iWeb home page...
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. The one doesn't follow from the other. Protecting books, music, movies, or other content doesn't impact "democractic speech" any more than requiring a subscription to a magazine or making someone buy a newspaper impacted free speech pre-internet.
In fact, one could easily argue that the way the NY TImes hides content behind registrations and passwords has more impact on democractic speech. DRM in this case is just another scare word. Surprised terrorists and child porn were not mentioned as well.
Regardless, anyone who chooses is free to publish that which they will, and charge for it, or not, and protect it, or not, just as we're free to determine if those conditions are worthwhile, or not...
The only "Natural Right" you have is to be eaten by that tiger in the corner. Other than that, ALL "rights" are artificial constructs.
Given such, I tend to side with the people who put in the years, talent, energy, and money, and take the risks associated with creating that which we all enjoy, and without whom those works would not exist. If they want to give said work away then fine. If, like most of us, they need to feed the kids and pay the rent, then you have the "right" to respect their wishes and pay for their music if you find it to be of value.
In a utopian society, EVERYTHING would be freely shared. Unfortunately, I don't live in that world, and neither do you...
"Where the fuck is my $5 CD I was promised in the late 80s? I don't mean the bargain bin. How is it possible that 20 years later we still have the same prices as we did then?"
Factor in two decades worth of inflation, and you ARE paying $5 for a CD. (Actually, prices for new releases have DECLINED over that period.)
I also think you're over-generalizing when you say, "They will just have to live with the fame, fans, and the millions they already made." Probably the top 5% of the bands playing music have made "millions". Like any field of endeavour, some make millions, some make nothing, and the vast majority simply manage to make ends meet.
All in all, it's oddly appropriate that you mention Brittney Spears, as, like her music, your arguments sound okay, but tend to lack any substance whatsoever.
Actually, Amazon's personalization and recommendation system fundamentally sucks. Buy one book on Java and your recommendations fill up with them. Buy the latest album or book by a specific singer or author, and suddenly every album or book they ever sang or wrote shows up, no matter that you already own them. Buy a copy of LOTR, and apparently you also need every hardbound and paperback version ever published.
What I'd really like there is a browser's "Clear History" command so I could zap it all at once, just so I'd have a chance to see some new books...
Seems to me you're neglecting the cost/benefit ratio. If it costs X to fix a problem experienced by everyone, and it only costs Y to compensate the N number of people who actually suffer, and X is greater than Y, then why fix it? Cheaper to simply live with it and pay 'em off.
If, on the other hand, each of those N people can hit you for a significant sum, then you have an incentive to actually spend those dollars up front.
While I do think we have too many "for profit" lawsuits, and I kind of like the idea of liability caps, I dislike the fact that it "lowers the bar" and lets the bean counters run more risks.
We give the Minutemen rifles that shoot chips instead of slugs, post 'em on the border, and tell them they can shoot as many illegals as they like. They'll love it.
"If what you say is true, this produces something like what economists call a "perverse incentive."
Precisely. Why do you think the "war" on terror is now being called "the long war" and likened to the Cold War? Because as long as the "war" continues, extraordinary measures will continue to be "needed".
Huh. So then, your original statement that 'these "content creators" have taken and used other peoples ideas, or "Intellectual Property" if you will, without consent to create their works', is false.
Because either all of those "ideas" are protected and can't be stolen, as you've just said, or they haven't been taken at all, in which case your "problem" is solved.
Fundamentally, your arguments boil down to the "Photoshop is too expensive for me" rationalization. And since it's too expensive and you'd never buy it anyway, it must be okay to steal it.
Yes, Adobe would have never sold PS to you. But by stealing and using it, you didn't pay $99 for PS Elements. Nor did you buy Paintshop Pro, nor any of the plethora of shareware products out there. Heck, you didn't even "support" open source.
Back to Gigli. By downloading it you didn't pay $19.95 for it. Nor did you pay $4.95 at the bargin bin, $3.99 for PPV, $3.0 at Blockbuster, from NetFlix, or $1.99 at the grocery store. You didn't even wait for it to be "free" on TV or cable, or check out that paid copy from the library. Nor did you do any of those things that evening for another movie you might have liked more, nor did you go to the movies, buy and read a book, and so on.
Which is why rationalizing that your actions regarding Gigli had no impact are just that. You had plenty of alternatives. But they weren't "convenient" and weren't at a price you were willing to pay.
Face it. Whenever you want whatever it is you want, and don't want to pay for it, in your mind your actions are automatically "justified"...
Hey! I have an idea. Let's create the world's best web browser. Cool. And now where are we? Well... nowhere. Now, let's talk about people who did just that, and the dozens upon dozens of man-years it took to write FireFox and get it to the point where it is now.
Hey! I have an idea. Let's write a book about wizards and elves and hobbits. And now that we're done with the idea, why don't we talk about JRRT, who spent the better part of his life actually creating that story and that world and those characters.
Hey! I have an idea. Let's make it into a movie! But how many people had that idea, and did nothing about it? Now let's talk about Peter Jackson, and the, what... nine years it took to actually make that film trilogy.
The fact is that IP law is NOT and never has been about protecting ideas. It is, however, about protecting a specific implementation of those ideas, and about protecting the people who did so. It's about protecting and encouraging that time and effort and skill and talent and investment.
That's why all this talk about "ideas" is nothing more than a straw man, and again little more than an attempt to trivialize the situation. Actually write that book or software, or produce that movie, do the work and spend the years and resources needed to implement an "idea", and then--and only then--will we have something to talk about.
But does the book mention the marketing genuis behind the concept of producing a console that practically no one could buy?
He's a moron? It's obvious that the government would require anyone getting a card to pay for the process...
It all comes down to the AdWords algorithm and its intent, which isn't to help Luis OR Amazon, but to simply maximize profit for Google.
I think this either/or is leaving a few major participants out of the equation: Google's users.
Profits notwithstanding, the primary intent of the AdWords algorithm is to provide relevant content to the user, including relevant ads. Present irrelevant content and ads, and the users disappear, and the revenue does likewise..
Whatever happen to the time-honored tradition of "volume discounts"? It's probably not "fair" that Walmart can get better prices on goods than the local mom-and-pop, but they do.
But in both cases (WM/Google) the cost of doing business with a smaller supplier/advertiser is a higher percentage off the potential income. Spend more with Google, and you get better discounts that reflect that fact you're making them more money with basically the same amount of overhead (billing, etc.).
And I've always thought this was a BAD idea for a long time, as it's the first step to killing off a vital portion of the internet.
News groups, discussion groups, SIGs, PACs, online communities, word/joke/whatever-of-the-day mailing lists, notification lists, and so on, all depend on free access to email. This is especially true for sites and services run by individuals, non-profits, and other organizations who are not businesses and usually have a hard enough time keeping their doors (sites) open.
Some businesses could pay for it, but do you think for a moment that those costs are not going to be passed on?
And stopping spam? Please. Hackers will setup their own servers in places that don't charge such taxes, or take over existing boxes in places that do, and in either case not pay a dime.
Besides, what do you want to bet that any email sent by the government will be exempt from such a tax? Of course they'll be free to spam us.
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid idea. As others have said, it's nothing more than a shortsighted money grab, and we're the ones who'll be punished for it... in more ways than one.
And people are ready, willing, and able to go to school, learn, and work. Here in the US these days it seems that the highest aspiration, and expectation, is winning American Idol...
Even disregarding the old quote that says a "picture is worth a thousand words", the web is a visual medium. We don't just read it, we see it. In fact, research has shown that most of us simply scan pages first, looking for items of interest, and only reading deeper once something has attracted our attention.
As such, you do realize that color and graphics, style and presentation, choice of images, all contribute to the tone and meaning and emotion of what you're trying to say? Choosen wisely, they can dramatically increase your probability of successfully communicating your message. Design can give back the shades of nuance and subtlety lost in the translation to another medium.
Choose them poorly, and they, like bad spelling and grammar, can sabotage your efforts. In fact, flame wars on Slashdot illustrate precisely why words alone fail to communicate, as they lack the visual and audio cues we reply upon to discern meaning and intent.
In fact, such choices gage not only the professionalism of a given site, but also tend to reflect the professionalism of its owners. What can one gather from a site that's scattered and disorganized and amateurish and filled with errors? Do such traits carry over into their other work, as well?
Like it or not, fair or not, presentation is important, and you will be judged on your ability to execute it successfully.
"No reason?" Sorry, but it's obvious that you're the one who doesn't understand how the rest of the world communicates.
"File sharing is no different than what many people did in the 80's when they made tapes of music and shared it."
I beg to differ here. Making a copy of a tape or record and giving it to a friend is "sharing". Making 10,000 copies and giving them to 10,000 friends [sic] is "publishing".
Moreover, sharing had a built-in limitation because it had a cost: the tape. How many high-school kids in the '80s bought 10,000 tapes, made copies, and then just gave them away to strangers?
Sorry, but publishing is not fair use.
"...this creates a very unstable situation, since the Administration can leak (I mean, "selectively declassify") information any old time they feel like it..."
Or, conversely, they can simply classify any inconvenient fact, program, operation, or other evidence of wrongdoing and then dare any member of the press not already in jail to report it.
Like it or not, this is indeed treading on the "slippery slope".
Yeah, I saw that. Unfortunately, the headline for the story was "Nuclear Plant Cooling Tower Implodes", as if it happened by accident.
Spot off. If that were an OS X machine that required a password to do an install most users would type it automatically anyway.
And you really have to ask, why is an instant-messaging text system letting you send ANY files in the first place? Want to send me a file? Then send it to my email account where the virus scanners at least have a crack at it.
And I can just as easily blame "cool" creeping featurism in the IM client. "Hey, look, now we can send files too!"
Go to the Ars site and check the review of the Mac mini Core Duo with Intel integrated graphics. It apparently handles video and DVDs just fine.
'twould be better to state your assumptions as such, and not as facts...
In all fairness, have you ever seen the amount of work that has to be done to drill, cut, string, and prep a building for the type of controlled demolition the tinfoil folk are insisting had to occur? You'd think maybe a few people would have noticed...
Of course, you could do it that way. Then again, you just have to wonder why tons of burning jet fuel wouldn't detonate tons of propositioned explosives...
Ever considered the amount of data that has to be churned through to build your average custom My Yahoo home page? Especially one with a ton of custom news items, stocks, local weather, local movie listings, and so on?
Major web sites are just a "little" more complex than your typical iWeb home page...