If this is in fact a recorder a 30-day time limit (if you have to have one) seems much more reasonable, especially when you consider one of the reasons for having one is to watch shows you've recorded during a one/two-week vacation. As is, it would delete them before you even get back...
You're right, there is a difference. You can stand up for your "rights" by...
1) Writing to your senator and congress-critter.
2) Civil and public protest.
3) Public education and discourse.
4) Voting with your dollars and boycotting companies and products.
5) Voting with your dollars and supporting alternatives.
Unfortunately, "standing up for our rights" all too often means none of those things, and simply translates to copying/stealing whatever one thinks they're entitled to, and can get away with.
And in doing so, also ignores the "rights" of those who create the work to start with.
They don't lose when their copyrighted works are shared...
As you can't quantify that it's little more than an assumption. If a few or some share files, it's probably not a problem. If ever the majority, or all do so, then it becomes a major problem, and both they and you and I lose.
Too many "doesn't hurt" arguments rest on the former, but they are deathly afraid of the later. As they should be.
Linux is quickly taking over the server market segment so SOMEONE has to like the Linux approach.
Ummmmm.... Linix geeks who think memorizing 500 different and arcane command line and configuration file options is great fun... and good job security?;)
The Eagle transporter was cool though, a practical design and it accurately relfected the fact that a ship built for space didn't have to be smooth and aerodynamic... aka Enterprise.
invisible hand assumes that customers will act, at least on average, in their own interest. I doubt that. Market stupidity is a non-neglible quanity...
Unfortunately for your example, customers have many, many definitions of "in their own interest".
One may, for example, assume a "smart" customer would choose a superior OS like... OS X. Or Linix. Or whatever.
However, they also consider other questions like... How much it is? Is it already installed so I don't have to mess with it? Do I have to relearn everything? While it run my existing software? Will it work on my computer? Is Half-Life 2 available for it? And so on.
Thus what you might consider to be a "stupid" choice may make sense to those who make it, because that choice best reflected their needs, their budget, their skill level, and/or their ability to change.
Sum up the majority of those decisions, and you have the dominant market force.
The only way an open communications system can be secure is by using a codebook. A message such as, "Time to meet your grandmother," can mean anything from "Blow the bridge!" to "Meet me at the safehouse tonight."
Of course, while the communication itself is secure, distributing and protecting the codebook itself has it's own set of problems...
Actually, that's why we're working to develop inspections systems overseas in the facilties where the containers are loaded to begin with. All cargo in transit to the US must be transhipped through one of these hubs.
Actually, I hadn't dropped it. When someone copies my work without permission they are, in my mind, stealing my efforts, my time, and my dollars, both in potential revenue and in dollars spent during development. We can agree to disagree, but that's my viewpoint.
What makes it worse to me, is that many say the way things "should" work are for such things to be created and offered for free. As services. Open source. It's the new "free" market.
And there are sites and sources for music, and indie movies, and games, and software, whereby people have done just that. And I have no problem with that, because that's their choice. And if people choose to patronize those sites and works to the exclusion of commercial products, then that is a legitimate force market and change would occur.
What I have a problem with is that some people still choose to steal from those who have choosen NOT to offer their wares for free. With free options available, they still CHOOSE to rip off commercial music and movies and software.
That's why I view most of these arguments as nothing more than massive rationalization. They want it, they think they're entitled to it, and they think they can take it without fear of consequence.
And if you think it's okay to rip people off and disregard their wishes, then we grew up in very different moral climates.
The vast majority of people watch tv, they don't make tv...
I think that distinction is pretty much meaningless. More people eat bread than bake it. More people drive cars than make them. Consumers, in any field, almost always outnumber the producers by several orders of magnitude.
Companies that base their business on being middle men are never going to be for a way to do business without them.
First, the process you're trying to elucidate is called disintermediation.
Second, there will always be a place for "middle men" if they provide sufficient value.
Do I want to deal with every publisher on the planet... or buy from Amazon? Do I want to comb every newspaper for stories and deals... or check Yahoo and eBay? Do I want an acount with every movie studio or NetFlix?
Do I want to try browsing every site on the web for the information I need... or do I do a Google search.
They are all "middle men" and they all provide a useful service.
Not argument, but a comment. I think the real problem at the moment is, to continue the analogy, you CAN'T copy bread. Or housing. Or cars. Or clothes.
So the people who produce music, movies, games, and software can't just "copy" all those other things that which they need to live. As such, to obtain them they still need to get paid to produce that which they create.
Spend a year building a custom car, and you can sell it and buy what you need. Spend a year making a movie or writing software and, according to some, they can't sell it and/or obtain royalties on the work, but must "give" it away for free. Or it will be "taken" for free, no matter what the author's wishes.
An inequitable situation.
In that case those who would produce such things must be independently wealthy, do it as a hobby, beg, or hope they find a patron. None of which strike me as particularly great options, especially if the rest of us, as mentioned before, still want all of those games, books, movies, and music.
Given that, I view copyright and IP law as still needed to offset a temporary and sudden imbalance. Perhaps, as you suggest, other systems will evolve. Maybe we'll invent the replicator. Until then, I still need bread to buy the bread.
I already gave two times... bread you baked: if it were possible to copy those, and I used those copies...
Then the bakery goes out of business, the owner goes bankrupt, and what are you going to copy now?
I'll end this with a true story, which you're free to believe or not.
I was director of development at a commercial software company whose sales were lagging. On our next release of our business software we tried an experiment and implemented a network protection scheme whereby the program would refuse to run if it saw another program on the net with the same serial number.
Care to guess the result? Sales didn't double. They didn't triple. They quadrupled. "Loyal" customers called up and said, "Ah, it looks like we may need another dozen copies of..."
Unfortunately, by that time cash flow, income, and sales tax issues due to lack of income had already killed the company. It sank, the employees lost their jobs, and the investors lost their dough (bakery again), even though the product was popular.
So you see, I already know that copies cost sales. It's not a theoretical possibility.
One other thing. When someone steals and uses Photoshop (my conversation, my words) because it's "too expensive" (or whatever the rationalization) Adobe didn't get a return on the money they invested making the product.
But not only didn't the thief not buy PS, they also didn't buy Elements, or Image Studio, or PhotoPaint, or any other of the cheaper alternatives, even if they could have afforded them. Why should they? They got the best for free.
By the time cell phones have enough storage and power to be full-fledged MP3 players, Apple's iPod will support downloadable video, and you'll still want a separate, larger unit simply for the bigger screen.
Slashdot Mirror
If this is in fact a recorder a 30-day time limit (if you have to have one) seems much more reasonable, especially when you consider one of the reasons for having one is to watch shows you've recorded during a one/two-week vacation. As is, it would delete them before you even get back...
Right. That's why you pay a surchange on every piece of blank media you buy.
And your quote regarding the "legality" of copying whatever you want on a P2P network doesn't quite seem to represent the case in question.
Nice try though.
1) Writing to your senator and congress-critter.
2) Civil and public protest.
3) Public education and discourse.
4) Voting with your dollars and boycotting companies and products.
5) Voting with your dollars and supporting alternatives.
Unfortunately, "standing up for our rights" all too often means none of those things, and simply translates to copying/stealing whatever one thinks they're entitled to, and can get away with.
And in doing so, also ignores the "rights" of those who create the work to start with.
As you can't quantify that it's little more than an assumption. If a few or some share files, it's probably not a problem. If ever the majority, or all do so, then it becomes a major problem, and both they and you and I lose.
Too many "doesn't hurt" arguments rest on the former, but they are deathly afraid of the later. As they should be.
I'm going to get bombed for this, but... I don't see how being part of the "something-for-nothing" crowd automatically makes you a genuis.
You don't think they could track sales made to BLOCKBUSTER? Let's see...
Sold to Blockbuster, 500,000 copies of Fantastic Four, SN 123102001 to 123602000.
Heck, tracking shipments is what RFID is designed to do.
Of course not. They don't produce it.
Umm.... does your "friend" usally make 20,000 extra copies for all of his other "friends"?
Ummmmm.... Linix geeks who think memorizing 500 different and arcane command line and configuration file options is great fun... and good job security? ;)
The Eagle transporter was cool though, a practical design and it accurately relfected the fact that a ship built for space didn't have to be smooth and aerodynamic... aka Enterprise.
Unfortunately for your example, customers have many, many definitions of "in their own interest".
One may, for example, assume a "smart" customer would choose a superior OS like... OS X. Or Linix. Or whatever.
However, they also consider other questions like... How much it is? Is it already installed so I don't have to mess with it? Do I have to relearn everything? While it run my existing software? Will it work on my computer? Is Half-Life 2 available for it? And so on.
Thus what you might consider to be a "stupid" choice may make sense to those who make it, because that choice best reflected their needs, their budget, their skill level, and/or their ability to change.
Sum up the majority of those decisions, and you have the dominant market force.
True, which is why I'd prefer they studied civics, government, and history...
Yes, but just how many of those "trivial" educational software ports exist today?
That's exactly what occured with the "national id card" bill.
Of course, while the communication itself is secure, distributing and protecting the codebook itself has it's own set of problems...
Actually, that's why we're working to develop inspections systems overseas in the facilties where the containers are loaded to begin with. All cargo in transit to the US must be transhipped through one of these hubs.
What makes it worse to me, is that many say the way things "should" work are for such things to be created and offered for free. As services. Open source. It's the new "free" market.
And there are sites and sources for music, and indie movies, and games, and software, whereby people have done just that. And I have no problem with that, because that's their choice. And if people choose to patronize those sites and works to the exclusion of commercial products, then that is a legitimate force market and change would occur.
What I have a problem with is that some people still choose to steal from those who have choosen NOT to offer their wares for free. With free options available, they still CHOOSE to rip off commercial music and movies and software.
That's why I view most of these arguments as nothing more than massive rationalization. They want it, they think they're entitled to it, and they think they can take it without fear of consequence.
And if you think it's okay to rip people off and disregard their wishes, then we grew up in very different moral climates.
I think that distinction is pretty much meaningless. More people eat bread than bake it. More people drive cars than make them. Consumers, in any field, almost always outnumber the producers by several orders of magnitude.
"I don't want to" pretty much sums up the whole problem, doesn't it?
First, the process you're trying to elucidate is called disintermediation.
Second, there will always be a place for "middle men" if they provide sufficient value.
Do I want to deal with every publisher on the planet... or buy from Amazon? Do I want to comb every newspaper for stories and deals... or check Yahoo and eBay? Do I want an acount with every movie studio or NetFlix?
Do I want to try browsing every site on the web for the information I need... or do I do a Google search.
They are all "middle men" and they all provide a useful service.
So the people who produce music, movies, games, and software can't just "copy" all those other things that which they need to live. As such, to obtain them they still need to get paid to produce that which they create.
Spend a year building a custom car, and you can sell it and buy what you need. Spend a year making a movie or writing software and, according to some, they can't sell it and/or obtain royalties on the work, but must "give" it away for free. Or it will be "taken" for free, no matter what the author's wishes.
An inequitable situation.
In that case those who would produce such things must be independently wealthy, do it as a hobby, beg, or hope they find a patron. None of which strike me as particularly great options, especially if the rest of us, as mentioned before, still want all of those games, books, movies, and music.
Given that, I view copyright and IP law as still needed to offset a temporary and sudden imbalance. Perhaps, as you suggest, other systems will evolve. Maybe we'll invent the replicator. Until then, I still need bread to buy the bread.
Then the bakery goes out of business, the owner goes bankrupt, and what are you going to copy now?
I'll end this with a true story, which you're free to believe or not.
I was director of development at a commercial software company whose sales were lagging. On our next release of our business software we tried an experiment and implemented a network protection scheme whereby the program would refuse to run if it saw another program on the net with the same serial number.
Care to guess the result? Sales didn't double. They didn't triple. They quadrupled. "Loyal" customers called up and said, "Ah, it looks like we may need another dozen copies of..."
Unfortunately, by that time cash flow, income, and sales tax issues due to lack of income had already killed the company. It sank, the employees lost their jobs, and the investors lost their dough (bakery again), even though the product was popular.
So you see, I already know that copies cost sales. It's not a theoretical possibility.
One other thing. When someone steals and uses Photoshop (my conversation, my words) because it's "too expensive" (or whatever the rationalization) Adobe didn't get a return on the money they invested making the product.
But not only didn't the thief not buy PS, they also didn't buy Elements, or Image Studio, or PhotoPaint, or any other of the cheaper alternatives, even if they could have afforded them. Why should they? They got the best for free.
By the time cell phones have enough storage and power to be full-fledged MP3 players, Apple's iPod will support downloadable video, and you'll still want a separate, larger unit simply for the bigger screen.
The odds of a contribution to commercial/propriatary software being of potential future value could also greater than zero.
The question is how much greater, and I'm pretty sure no one actually knows...
Of course, it could also simply be a standard hack writing assignment.
Who's covering Groundhog's Day? Check. Mother's Day flower sales? Check. Star Wars fanatical fan story? Check.