Note that I'm not arguing that Rambam had a right to make his presentation;
just that public confidence in the justice system might have been better served if they
had allowed him to do so.
Assuming the Feds acted in good faith? Well...
For one thing, because they could just as easy have nabbed him as he came off the stage. This isn't the Blues Brothers - he wasn't going to vanish down a trapdoor.
Alternatively, they might do it so that the exercise didn't appear to be an attempt to censor honest citizens.
I mean if he didn't have anything sensitive to say, where was the harm in letting him talk?
He could have done it handcuffed to an agent for that matter.
If they'd done that, it would have been clear that there was no ulterior motive.
Wouldn't it be their obligation to apprehend him (and theoretically remove him from public threat) as soon as possible?
Well, arguably yes, at least if you assume that we're dealing with Osama Bin Headcase here, and that he intends to let off a canister of Sarin Gas in the conference center. However the man in question was arrested charged with witness tampering.
I don't think prompt arrest is always the most important priority in law enforcement. Television encourages
us to suppose it must be, because the dramatic structure of a crime series pretty much requires that there be suspense up until the last minute, amd with terrible consequences should the lawmen fail.
But real life doesn't work like that and, realistically, the worst case here was that they'd have to
pick him up on the road, on his way home.
Sometimes it's more beneficial that the law be seen to be fair and even handed, than that an alleged criminal (and the charge has not been in any way proven) be arrested at the earliest possible opportunity..
From that perspective, and given the limited negative consequences of a wrong call,
I think the public interest might have been better served by letting him do his presentation first.
It's the old saying: the law must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. I'm not sure it was seen to be done in this case.
Target price (IIRC) is 300 bucks for private buyers - you get a free laptop with every PSU.
That's cost plus 200% which buys two laptops for kids that can't afford them.
Nicholas Negroponte has also said that he does't think many adults will want one after they've seen one. A combination of the colour scheme, the size of the keyboard, and the fact that they've been designed to be appealing to kids, but not to adults. I think what it comes down to is that they don't want adults to
want them.
Me, I still think they sound cool. Shades of the The Producers anyone?
Obviously only the name is the same with this latest version.
Obviously? I was just looking for the bit that said "... but this one doesn't use nukes" but didn't find it.
I'd have thought that something along those lines would have been the obvious thing to add if they weren't going to use nuclear power. Given that they didn't, I don't think assuming a non-nuclear craft is obvious at all.
Entering a computer that has no password or no security is NOTHING like not locking the door of a house.
I can sympathise with a desire to see the correct terminology used,
but in this instance, I'm not sure I can see the harm.
The trouble is that hacking is, in terms of human society, comparatively new.
Everyone understands the times when it is right or wrong to enter someone
else's house. The same is not clear for remote computer access.
So, it makes sense to look for an situation analagous to unathorised access
and reason from that starting point. A lot of people, myself included,
find the housebreaking metaphor apt.
Of course, it remains an analogy, and necessarily inexact, but it does provide a
useful frame of reference. I'm not sure it's possible to consdier the issue without one.
Is there anything intrinsically good or bad in accessing a computer system? Why should
permission alter the scenario? At least if we talk about houses and bolts we make our
presumptions clear from the start.
Do you think the analogy is unhelpful? Do you have a better starting point?
I can't see how else to approach the problem.
People are presented with a tool for publishing absolutely anything,
about any topic they choose.
Instead of presenting thoughtful, creative or otherwise valuable content,
the vast majority elect to pointlessly ramble about themselves in minute
detail or engage in endless back and forth with other users about nothing
in particular.
Alas, the price of giving people a tool for publishing whatever they
want, is that people will use it to publish whatever they want.
In many ways, the whole blog concept has perhaps lowered the barrier to
entry for on-line publishing a little *too* far. When anyone can publish
anything you want with virtually no effort, then it no longer requires
that you be inspired or motivated
And I'm sure that every second-rate newshound in the western world
would agree with you. It's McBride's Complaint; "How am I expected
to make a living if the kids keep giving it away for free?"
The media has adopted the trend too, with 'blog' in the context of a news
site all too often meaning 'poorly researched and largely content-free
"reporting" on sensationalist subject matter.'
The media has been publishing content free sensationalism since
long before the rise of blogging. Hell, they've been doing that
since long before the Internet. All raising the barrier again would do,
(assuming it were possible) is allow easier control over what
sorts
of sensationalist claptrap get disseminated, but I don't personally
see that as a desireable outcome.
Perhaps it's time to move past the blog hype and to consider some method
for differentiating personal diaries
Won't work. The unclued will get it wrong or ignore it and
we'll be no further forward. Unless you meant to suggest that
someone be placed in charge to impose some classification?
Maybe a enforce a minimum standard?
Ultimately it's depressing that, given the ability to communicate our
ideas to anyone on earth, most of us can't come up with anything better
than pictures of ourselves drinking too much and mass-produced but
ineffectual rebelliousness.
I don't see it that way.
Stephen King once wrote "If you lift weights for an hour a day, you're
going to grow muscles. If you sit down and write for an hour a day,
you're going to learn how to write". Some of these bloggers you so deride
are going to grow into people worth reading.
In the mean time, if you want kids to learn how to write, you have to
let them scribble in crayon at the start. And if they're going to do that,
then by all means let them do it over myspace.
editing a movie could change its artistic value or the points the artists are trying to make. I think that's a weak argument, though, since the people watching know the naughty bits are removed and aren't being given the false impression
mmm... so where do you draw the line? Suppose I edit the work, without secrecy, but maliciously alter
your words to cast you in a light you find morally repugnant? Is that OK because I told the buyer?
And if not, who gets to decide what ought to be repugnant to whom? If the answer to that turns out to be me rather than you than I can put whatever words in your mouth I choose. If it also turns out that I control distribution channels significantly wider and more efficient than you do, then there is an excellent chance that most people will never even reason your views have been misrepresented.
As I see it, the only way you can be sure of a fair crack of the whip is if
you get to decide what can and can't be done with your own work. This may be about control,
but I don't this is an inappropriate level of control for a creator to have over
his or her own works
Not that censorship and content control are mutulally exclusive anyway. At least not if the control
is vested in other than the creator
So, what this really comes down to is the movie studios wanting complete control over their works, which I'm surprised to see much of the Slashdot crowd backing up.
So, hypothetically speaking, if I was to take a collection of your posts and unilaterally edit it for some arbitrary quality, "common sense" let's say, you'll have no problem when I then distribute it as your work?
I mean it might not be exactly what you said, but it'll be what you meant to say, or what you would have said if you'd expressed yourself clearly. Or what you would have said if you'd agreed with me in the first place. It all comes to the same thing, right? Heck, I'll even make sure you get any money it makes so you're not out of pocket.
Seems it's better to hate "the red states" than to hate the MPAA.
It's still kind of alpha, but some of us are trying to cut down on that whole knee-jerk "joo R teh suXXor!" response thing. Just don't spread it around, ok? Some of us have a reputation to maintain:)
If you imagine for a second Microsoft will afford to make a critical
mistake in putting this together and having it as reliable as one would
expect, you're probably making the worst assumption of your life.
I'd certainly hope so. However Microsoft don't exactly have an
exceptional track record, and if we're being serious, I think
their involvement in such a safety critcal area is surely cause
for concern.
IMHO, this will actually be one of the most reliable things Microsoft
ever produced (or will ever produce):p
And much as I dislike Microsoft, I share your hope. Let's hope the
lads at Redmond do this right.
(Although I have to say, I'd feel a lot happier if the MS astroturf
brigade didn't constantly assert that all of XPs flaws were due to
"faulty drivers". You gotta laugh - sometimes it's either that or cry)
That depends on whether you have something to say to my assertions, other
than to accuse me of being on a personally directed rant. So you got
to 5 points for your post. Back it up with something to say other than
"that's what we call it here in the big city." (And where the fsck()
did *that* little attack come from?)
Just following like with like. And since I've made my point,
and since you've declined to make any new ones,
I think I'll call it a day.
Thanks for your time. I'm sure you'll find
someone on Slashdot who wants to play you
at flame wars.
That's a lovely little bit of scholarship there, and it is nice to see
an argument supported by something more than hot air and hand waving. However, I can't help but notice that Dr. Donald Waters (the author of the passage in question)
carefully avoids any discussion of the merits of the term. So, since he isn't directly supporting your position, perhaps
you'll forgive me if I question some of the conclusions you draw.
The press rightly continues to use the word 'piracy' for illicit copying and distribution of original materials.
Rightly by what criteria? I'll grant the historic precedent, but just
because the Bishop of Oxford got his knickers in a twist in the
Seventeenth Century, that doesn't justify conflating the infrigement of
copyright with crimes of violence.
"Piracy" both misrepresents the nature of the crime. I can't see that as helping in any way.
So tell me - why this abhorrence of using the correct term? It's not as if downloading MP3s will suddenly become legal just because we all stop
needlessly sensationalising the issue and start using describing these matters with precision.
If you keep trying to pretend that copyright infringement is OK because it ain't "piracy,"...
I'm not trying, I'm not pretending, and copyright infringement is not OK.
That does not however mean that it's ok to conflate the downloading of MP3 files with
crimes of violence.
Dont you ever get tired of typing the same argument to get modded insightful every couple of days?
So I'm a cracked record and a karma whore all of a sudden? Hey, why
don't we stop discussing these silly issues and start getting personal?
Nothing like a good flame war to bury the issue under discussion,
after all.
If you want to get bitchy about terminology, it could easily be argued
that the legal stance (that copyright infringement is not theft) is not
a moral one.
I think it's useful for the debate to draw a distinction between piracy,
theft, and copyright infringement. The moral aspects of terminological
precision escape me. Of course, your comment would have made sense would be had I
suggested that piracy, theft, or even copyright infringement were not
illegal. Please don't think me pedantic if I point out
that I said no such thing.
With that in mind, the whole argument becomes semantic.
Except that semantics doesn't take out lawsuits against grandmothers
and five year old girls, which suggests to me that your "just semantics"
argument may be flawed in some small way.
Basically you're trying to justify your own immoral actions by hiding behind pedantry.
Which immoral actions would these be, precisely? Is there a law that
says I have to download a MP3 or something before I'm allowed to disagree
with modern abuses of the copyright system? I think perhaps you're just
looking to shore up a morally indefensible position by clouding the
issue with ad hominem attacks, straw men arguments and sophistry.
I don't plan to stop calling people who download my stuff illegally
'theives' any time soon,
I expect not. Certainly you don't see to have any inhibitions about
launching unwarranted personal attacks. In the mean time, I plan to
carry pointing out that using inappropriate and needlessly emotional
terms isn't helping anyone who actually wants to resolve this issue.
regardless of what legal beaurocrats and
Mr. Look-at-me-i'm-insightful have to say.
Gawsh, shucks. You're just a plain spoken down to earth kind of
guy what's had about enough of us high falutin' fancy talking city
types, right? Well Mr salt-of-the-earth, if you've anything to add
that isn't a cheap appeal to sentiment, a logical fallacy,
or a personal insult, I'll be happy to discuss it. Otherwise
I expect we can both find more productive uses for our time.
Christ, the way you fuckers insist it be called "copyright infringement" or "nonauthorized duplication" stinks of PC
That argument is total "bullshit".
Granted, if I left the quotes off, you'd be entitled to complain
about the use of prejudcial terms without support.
But since I put it in quotes (and since I did it for a
reason) then apparently you're not allowed to object,
right? Or did I miss something?
Tell you what; feel free to suggest a non-prejorative term
for copyright infringement that doesn't presuppose the moral
outcome of the debate. If it's shorter than "copyright infringement"
I'm sure we'd all be happy to adopt it.
But why is the anti-copyright argument always the one touted here?
Well, first of all, I don't think it is. I think on the whole you'll find a fairly strong libertarian[1] element
amongst slashdotters. This tends to emerge as opposition to anyone trying to make them do anything. SO, you
know, we're not militant on the subject of copyright, but also operating system monopolies, attempts to
manipulate Internet charging, censorship, civil rights in general, and interference by foreign governments.
So I don't really thing the typical/. position is as inconsistent as you make it sound - just that you're
not looking at it from the proper perspective.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the the content owners might need
to sell the content for 2 or 5 or 10 times more than AllOfMP3.com does
to actually support the industry?
Hell yes.
They may even have needed those margins back in the days when a recording
studio couldn't be whomped up with a few egg cartons, a spare room and
a decent Linux box. These days. I'm not convinced that is true. I might
have more sympathy if they'd release their back catalogues at something
near cost - the ones where they've already recouped their production
costs. Sadly, I have grave suspicions that most of the margin is "needed"
for saturation advertising of manufactured but talent free wonderkind,
and to support executive coke habits. (well as long as everyone else
is throwing cheap prejudicial stereotypes around...)
Also increasingly, a lot of that money seems to be supporting
lawsuits targeting randomly selected internet users. Don't even
get me started on Sony BMG and the rootkit fiasco.
In short, I reckon they could afford to shed a bit of flab and drop costs.
If your answer is "no, they don't need all these ungodly rich Britney
Spears types" etc.,and should be able to sell it for just the costs
of bandwidth...
That's not quite my objection...
who the hell are YOU to decide that?
Me? I'm the customer. Allegedly that makes me always right.
Mind, I have to say that my argument is weakened by the fact
I stopped buying CDs years ago because I thought them too expensive
for what they were worth. And these days, with so much decent
CC licence
music
kicking around, I find I'm hardly missing commercial music at all.
So, that's who I am to dare to have an opinion, and what I've done
about it. And since I've defended my position, who are you to suggest
I shouldn't have one? Fair's fair.
I'm not saying the trade groups aren't out for control, and maybe even
aren't greedy baby-eating bastards. But this isn't binary opposition:... Where's the middle ground?
Well said, sir. I agree.
But can we ignore A.A. Milne's shit that's 75 years old for a minute as
an arguing point,
Not a problem in itself...
...and talk about what's really at issue, which is brand
new, current, and popular music and movies?
... but that means not only Winnie the Pooh, but we also have to ignore
Mickey Mouse. And Elvis Presley, the Beatles, the orphan works problem,
and the fact that the current crop of music and video is going to be in the Pooh
category. Add to that the fact that the DMCA means it's probably going to stay there forever,
anf whether you're in favour of it or not, I think it's relevant to the discussion.
Otherwise, I might as well say "how about we ignore all the facts that support
your side of the argument and just talk about those that make my
position look good".
I'm all in favour of finding a middle ground. Just so long as we don't
shift the endpoints too far before we start looking for it.
[1] That's in the 80's sense of the word, before it was co-opted by the Gordon Gecko fanboys, that is.
Slashdot Mirror
Note that I'm not arguing that Rambam had a right to make his presentation; just that public confidence in the justice system might have been better served if they had allowed him to do so.
Really? So if I accuse you of a crime, you have to STFU? W00t!
ooh! You litterbug, you!
And yeah - the generator sounds really cool,I agree :)
Alternatively, they might do it so that the exercise didn't appear to be an attempt to censor honest citizens. I mean if he didn't have anything sensitive to say, where was the harm in letting him talk? He could have done it handcuffed to an agent for that matter. If they'd done that, it would have been clear that there was no ulterior motive.
Well, arguably yes, at least if you assume that we're dealing with Osama Bin Headcase here, and that he intends to let off a canister of Sarin Gas in the conference center. However the man in question was arrested charged with witness tampering.I don't think prompt arrest is always the most important priority in law enforcement. Television encourages us to suppose it must be, because the dramatic structure of a crime series pretty much requires that there be suspense up until the last minute, amd with terrible consequences should the lawmen fail.
But real life doesn't work like that and, realistically, the worst case here was that they'd have to pick him up on the road, on his way home.
Sometimes it's more beneficial that the law be seen to be fair and even handed, than that an alleged criminal (and the charge has not been in any way proven) be arrested at the earliest possible opportunity.. From that perspective, and given the limited negative consequences of a wrong call, I think the public interest might have been better served by letting him do his presentation first.
It's the old saying: the law must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. I'm not sure it was seen to be done in this case.
Is the same also true when (as in this case) you are alleged to have impersonated a federal agent? Let's find out, shall we?
Better turn youself in before they come and get you - you'll only make it harder on yourself otherwise.
Nicholas Negroponte has also said that he does't think many adults will want one after they've seen one. A combination of the colour scheme, the size of the keyboard, and the fact that they've been designed to be appealing to kids, but not to adults. I think what it comes down to is that they don't want adults to want them.
Me, I still think they sound cool. Shades of the The Producers anyone?
Silly? Yes. Paranoid? Possibly.
But if it wasn't connected to the content of his presentation, he could have taken five minutes after as easily as he could five minutes before.
Obviously? I was just looking for the bit that said "... but this one doesn't use nukes" but didn't find it.
I'd have thought that something along those lines would have been the obvious thing to add if they weren't going to use nuclear power. Given that they didn't, I don't think assuming a non-nuclear craft is obvious at all.
Well, Sony have given some world class stupid answers lately. I think the ones that did the most damage were.
Now that was arrogance.
Is it surprising if their other business interests get tarred with the same brush? I know it changed my mind about buying a PS3. .
Network neutrality is a communist plot?
Network Neutrality is responsible for the spread of Avian Flu?
Network Neutrality is the sole cause of global warming?
Network Neutrality has been linked to child pornography and white slavery?
Network Neutrality is the leading cause of death in children under five, worldwide?
Network Neutrality has been photographed standing next to Osama Bin Laden?
Network Neutrality shot JFK?
I find your argument oddly persuasive...
I can sympathise with a desire to see the correct terminology used, but in this instance, I'm not sure I can see the harm.
The trouble is that hacking is, in terms of human society, comparatively new. Everyone understands the times when it is right or wrong to enter someone else's house. The same is not clear for remote computer access.
So, it makes sense to look for an situation analagous to unathorised access and reason from that starting point. A lot of people, myself included, find the housebreaking metaphor apt.
Of course, it remains an analogy, and necessarily inexact, but it does provide a useful frame of reference. I'm not sure it's possible to consdier the issue without one. Is there anything intrinsically good or bad in accessing a computer system? Why should permission alter the scenario? At least if we talk about houses and bolts we make our presumptions clear from the start.
Do you think the analogy is unhelpful? Do you have a better starting point? I can't see how else to approach the problem.
Alas, the price of giving people a tool for publishing whatever they want, is that people will use it to publish whatever they want.
And I'm sure that every second-rate newshound in the western world would agree with you. It's McBride's Complaint; "How am I expected to make a living if the kids keep giving it away for free?"
The media has been publishing content free sensationalism since long before the rise of blogging. Hell, they've been doing that since long before the Internet. All raising the barrier again would do, (assuming it were possible) is allow easier control over what sorts of sensationalist claptrap get disseminated, but I don't personally see that as a desireable outcome.
Won't work. The unclued will get it wrong or ignore it and we'll be no further forward. Unless you meant to suggest that someone be placed in charge to impose some classification? Maybe a enforce a minimum standard?
I don't see it that way. Stephen King once wrote "If you lift weights for an hour a day, you're going to grow muscles. If you sit down and write for an hour a day, you're going to learn how to write". Some of these bloggers you so deride are going to grow into people worth reading.
In the mean time, if you want kids to learn how to write, you have to let them scribble in crayon at the start. And if they're going to do that, then by all means let them do it over myspace.
mmm... so where do you draw the line? Suppose I edit the work, without secrecy, but maliciously alter your words to cast you in a light you find morally repugnant? Is that OK because I told the buyer? And if not, who gets to decide what ought to be repugnant to whom? If the answer to that turns out to be me rather than you than I can put whatever words in your mouth I choose. If it also turns out that I control distribution channels significantly wider and more efficient than you do, then there is an excellent chance that most people will never even reason your views have been misrepresented.
As I see it, the only way you can be sure of a fair crack of the whip is if you get to decide what can and can't be done with your own work. This may be about control, but I don't this is an inappropriate level of control for a creator to have over his or her own works
Not that censorship and content control are mutulally exclusive anyway. At least not if the control is vested in other than the creator
Incorrect?
Where does it say the list is staticaly typed? ;)
So, hypothetically speaking, if I was to take a collection of your posts and unilaterally edit it for some arbitrary quality, "common sense" let's say, you'll have no problem when I then distribute it as your work?
I mean it might not be exactly what you said, but it'll be what you meant to say, or what you would have said if you'd expressed yourself clearly. Or what you would have said if you'd agreed with me in the first place. It all comes to the same thing, right? Heck, I'll even make sure you get any money it makes so you're not out of pocket.
It's still kind of alpha, but some of us are trying to cut down on that whole knee-jerk "joo R teh suXXor!" response thing. Just don't spread it around, ok? Some of us have a reputation to maintainCan anyone join in?
hmmm... viruses, something-beginning-with-I, spyware, trojans, adware... How about: instability, inanity, insanity, inexcusable, inexhaustable, indefensable, incompatibility, ignoble, irritation, idiotic, indefensible, imitative, imbecillic, inconvenient, illegitimate, immanent, immature, immoral and inevtiably illogical.
Pick any one that tickles your funny bone :)
No, I call it an invitation to start a flame war. I declined.
Thank you. You too. Bye now.
I'd certainly hope so. However Microsoft don't exactly have an exceptional track record, and if we're being serious, I think their involvement in such a safety critcal area is surely cause for concern.
And much as I dislike Microsoft, I share your hope. Let's hope the lads at Redmond do this right.
(Although I have to say, I'd feel a lot happier if the MS astroturf brigade didn't constantly assert that all of XPs flaws were due to "faulty drivers". You gotta laugh - sometimes it's either that or cry)
Just following like with like. And since I've made my point, and since you've declined to make any new ones, I think I'll call it a day.
Thanks for your time. I'm sure you'll find someone on Slashdot who wants to play you at flame wars.
Rightly by what criteria? I'll grant the historic precedent, but just because the Bishop of Oxford got his knickers in a twist in the Seventeenth Century, that doesn't justify conflating the infrigement of copyright with crimes of violence. "Piracy" both misrepresents the nature of the crime. I can't see that as helping in any way.
So tell me - why this abhorrence of using the correct term? It's not as if downloading MP3s will suddenly become legal just because we all stop needlessly sensationalising the issue and start using describing these matters with precision.
I'm not trying, I'm not pretending, and copyright infringement is not OK. That does not however mean that it's ok to conflate the downloading of MP3 files with crimes of violence.
Hmm... "ignored" by whom and why should I care?"
So I'm a cracked record and a karma whore all of a sudden? Hey, why don't we stop discussing these silly issues and start getting personal? Nothing like a good flame war to bury the issue under discussion, after all.
I think it's useful for the debate to draw a distinction between piracy, theft, and copyright infringement. The moral aspects of terminological precision escape me. Of course, your comment would have made sense would be had I suggested that piracy, theft, or even copyright infringement were not illegal. Please don't think me pedantic if I point out that I said no such thing.
Except that semantics doesn't take out lawsuits against grandmothers and five year old girls, which suggests to me that your "just semantics" argument may be flawed in some small way.
Which immoral actions would these be, precisely? Is there a law that says I have to download a MP3 or something before I'm allowed to disagree with modern abuses of the copyright system? I think perhaps you're just looking to shore up a morally indefensible position by clouding the issue with ad hominem attacks, straw men arguments and sophistry.
I expect not. Certainly you don't see to have any inhibitions about launching unwarranted personal attacks. In the mean time, I plan to carry pointing out that using inappropriate and needlessly emotional terms isn't helping anyone who actually wants to resolve this issue.
Gawsh, shucks. You're just a plain spoken down to earth kind of guy what's had about enough of us high falutin' fancy talking city types, right? Well Mr salt-of-the-earth, if you've anything to add that isn't a cheap appeal to sentiment, a logical fallacy, or a personal insult, I'll be happy to discuss it. Otherwise I expect we can both find more productive uses for our time.
That argument is total "bullshit".
Granted, if I left the quotes off, you'd be entitled to complain about the use of prejudcial terms without support. But since I put it in quotes (and since I did it for a reason) then apparently you're not allowed to object, right? Or did I miss something?
Tell you what; feel free to suggest a non-prejorative term for copyright infringement that doesn't presuppose the moral outcome of the debate. If it's shorter than "copyright infringement" I'm sure we'd all be happy to adopt it.
Well, first of all, I don't think it is. I think on the whole you'll find a fairly strong libertarian[1] element amongst slashdotters. This tends to emerge as opposition to anyone trying to make them do anything. SO, you know, we're not militant on the subject of copyright, but also operating system monopolies, attempts to manipulate Internet charging, censorship, civil rights in general, and interference by foreign governments.
So I don't really thing the typical /. position is as inconsistent as you make it sound - just that you're
not looking at it from the proper perspective.
Hell yes.
They may even have needed those margins back in the days when a recording studio couldn't be whomped up with a few egg cartons, a spare room and a decent Linux box. These days. I'm not convinced that is true. I might have more sympathy if they'd release their back catalogues at something near cost - the ones where they've already recouped their production costs. Sadly, I have grave suspicions that most of the margin is "needed" for saturation advertising of manufactured but talent free wonderkind, and to support executive coke habits. (well as long as everyone else is throwing cheap prejudicial stereotypes around...)
Also increasingly, a lot of that money seems to be supporting lawsuits targeting randomly selected internet users. Don't even get me started on Sony BMG and the rootkit fiasco.
In short, I reckon they could afford to shed a bit of flab and drop costs.
That's not quite my objection...
Me? I'm the customer. Allegedly that makes me always right. Mind, I have to say that my argument is weakened by the fact I stopped buying CDs years ago because I thought them too expensive for what they were worth. And these days, with so much decent CC licence music kicking around, I find I'm hardly missing commercial music at all. So, that's who I am to dare to have an opinion, and what I've done about it. And since I've defended my position, who are you to suggest I shouldn't have one? Fair's fair.
Well said, sir. I agree.
Not a problem in itself...
Otherwise, I might as well say "how about we ignore all the facts that support your side of the argument and just talk about those that make my position look good".
I'm all in favour of finding a middle ground. Just so long as we don't shift the endpoints too far before we start looking for it.
[1] That's in the 80's sense of the word, before it was co-opted by the Gordon Gecko fanboys, that is.