I love that one by Courtney Love. I didn't realize it was a speech, but I link to Salon's archive of it all the time. Her speech shows exactly how copyright law has failed.
I'm actually moving into the music business. Starting my first sortie right now, doing internet promotion for a band here in Austin that's got a fair amount of fans all over the south. I'm looking forward to finally getting involved rather than whining from the sidelines.:)
You have to take a few more steps back and look at what's going on in the whole industry, I think. The purpose of copyright law is to provide a way for creative types like musicians to possibly make a living on the free market, thus allowing them to be more productive, make more, and so forth. The target end result is a rich culture with lots of diversity.
Payola (among other aspects of the music business) works against that goal by making it possible for small-time groups to be kept out of the mix entirely, solely by making the price to play too high through immense generosity to the radio stations. This creates a situation where the single most common method of hearing new music is controlled by the people who have the largest interest in controlling the music available on the market. So it shuts out bands that the record labels think won't be worth any money.
This flies in the face of the noble intent of copyright by removing the free market as an input to how much money musicians make.
Sure, point out all sorts of alternate ways to find music (with the #1 method being what your friends tell you, of course), but no matter how many alternatives have existed historically, radio was the most-used, therefore the government has an interest in stepping in and doing something.
Now, I'm not saying the government did it for the sake of their precious copyright laws, but it does make sense to me in that context. I'm also not saying I'm opposed to record labels just buying 3-5 minutes of airtime and having the DJ say "The last 3-5 minutes of airtime were sponsored by Dadadadadada Records". I'm opposed to the record labels controlling the medium rather than competing within the medium. I'm opposed to the fact that no matter how many people call the radio station and request a specific song, it still won't get played unless the record label pays the radio station, so we don't even get to vote directly by calling the radio station. I'm opposed to so-called "request hours" that are the same as their regular playlist because the only requests they play are for songs that are already on their playlist.
Ack, we can argue all day long, and I'm sleepy and probably didn't completely make my point. Hopefully I at least gave you an alternate way of looking at it.
I think you're trying to misunderstand what he's saying, or you're just trying to defeat him rather than disagree and discuss.
Without consulting a dictionary, I tend to think "generally" means something like "most, but not all, of the time". So, let's say 80% of the time. So 80% of the time market regulation is bad. 20% of the time, market regulation is good. Antitrust law falls in the 20% category rather than the 80% category. The guy then went on to give examples of regulation that he figures falls into the 80% and the 20% categories.
I'm not saying I agree with him. Actually, I generally agree with him. In this case, I agree with him approximately 85%, based on what he has said. He may post more, in which case I may find I agree more or less than I did before.
That is, since the market is limited, the industry benefits from everyone liking the same things. It is much more difficult to manage and sell 1000 bands than it is to manage and sell 10. And now everyone's favorite:
Except that the record labels don't manage the bands. The bands get their own management, their own booking, their own agent, their own lawyer, their own accountant. The bands pay to record the record, pay for the artwork, etc. The band also pays the producer, iirc.
The record label pays for their portion of the marketing (which is payola, and a few other things). The record label pays to print the record. That's pretty much it. They then proceed to charge back most of their costs to, guess who?, the band. In the end, the record label winds up paying damn near nothing, selling the thing a million times, and then sues the band for not paying their bills, the whole time keeping their royalties until they pay up.
And the bands can't start doing anything about it as long as radio and MTV are pay to play.
Then along comes the internet, and the bands have a viable replacement for radio, new distribution channels, and new marketing channels that are independent of the record label, and the labels can't control it. Freedom is around the corner for the bands. So naturally the labels step in and try to stop it. That fight is still waging.
In the meantime, this fella comes along and decides to fight the record labels on their own turf.:) I find this good news, I hope he fights hard and wins.
The president has the authority to overtake a country for their oil and to demonstrate their power (kinda like picking on a little kid so the other kids see how tough you are and fear you) and fabricate evidence to justify such overtaking. Sport teams cannot do that.
I suspect that if we had sent the Dallas Cowboys and their cheerleaders instead of the army, the job in Iraq would already be done.
downloaded QBasic today to run a small prog I wrote years ago to process unwanted commas in the middle of CSV files (in-between quotes)!
As much as I love legacy code, why didn't you just take 5 seconds to rewrite the small prog in python with their nice csv module? Or perl, or whatever.
Even ignoring the fact you said a particular argument was "pointless" then almost immediately used the exact same argument, you are still full of BS.
I can cite. I don't expect you to believe me unless I actually do it, and it's late and I have a computer I need to fix so I can get paid, and this discussion will probably time out before I find time, but I can cite. There are plenty of studies available that back me up (and I have posted cites numerous times in the past, so if you google my user id and limit it to slashdot.org you should find some of them).
But I understand you figuring I'm full of shit unless I actually post cites, and I can live with it.:)
Yeah, if you completely ignore #1: "The purpose and character of the use". If the purpose of the use is to consume a game, movie, music, etc. without paying for it, then its not fair use.
That's a pretty one-dimensional way of looking at it. Because I can (and have) consumed games in the past that resulted in my recommendation being given and several sales being made. On a large scale (and this happens, like it or not, the cites I haven't provided that you won't respect until I do say so), this actually increases the market. In the case of P2P filesharing, music (and to a lesser extent, movies) are able to penetrate markets that were previously impenetrable, and they can do it without spending $millions like they already spend on the markets that are already saturated. This market penetration actually increases the value of the product significantly. The courts have the power to weigh this against #1 (as they did with radio in the past), provide a slap-on-the-wrist sort of fine and force a solution (again, as they did with radio). Instead, the courts decided to give awards so high that it pushes a business into bankruptcy and ruins individuals.
Anyway, since I don't actually have the time to dig up citations (and I never really did manage to collect them into one place, I should do that), and my argument falls down without them, and every single poster that has responded to me has also refused to cite, there's little point to pursuing this discussion further. next time this comes up when I'm paying attention, hopefully I'll have time to cite.;)
Ha-ha. Irrelevant. I get so sick of people trying to put words in my mouth that I only respond to those questions by pointing out the flaw in the question, and refusing to answer it until it is restated. Since the AC chickened out and didn't restate his question, I have nothing to answer.:)
Call it pedantic if you want, but I have neither judged you nor have I put words in your mouth. Think about it.
False. It shrinks the market. Most software developers already offer demos of their product. End users are already able to try most software. Piracy removes many more people from the market than it adds. How does selling fewer copies, and thus making less money, add value to a work?
I asked you to back up this statement in my last post, and I will not further discuss this until you do. What you have offered is assertion that appears to me grounded on speculation, and I'd like to see what it's grounded on. Since this is the basis of your position, I don't see how you would be able to object to providing actual evidence in place of assertions.
Here's a little clue. Any sentence that starts with the words "So what you are saying" or variations of those words is bullshit. It's a common tactic to take something someone says, use the words "So what you're saying", and manipulate what was actually said into something that is either intended to inflame the original talker or is now diametrically opposed to the original talker's position. It's a discrediting tactic, and serves no useful purpose in intelligent discourse.
Emphasis for quotes, bold text added for emphasis.
Except that you and others may have purchased the item had it not be made available via illegal means. Thus you are infringing on their rights to grant license to those who they choose to, and by the method and means that they choose.
You also may purchase the item now that you've played it and see how much the game rocks. Conversely, you may not have purchased the item having never played it, deciding to spend your money on something else. Arguing what any user may or may not do as a result of copying something is pointless, there are many possibilities. A better data set wouldn't include maybes or possiblies, it would instead show what percentage of a given demographic, after illegally copying the game, will a) purchase the game, b) delete it and never play it again, c) copy it for their friends. Show me some real numbers that show how the practice definitely hurts the producers, no matter how marginal the "hurt" may be.
"Fair Use" is not making as many copies as you want and giving them to people. Fair Use is being able to say, make MP3s from your CD (or vice-versa), record a TV show or radio broadcast, not distribute as many copies to as many people as you want.
From the fucking law:
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include ?
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
(I didn't dig up citations, but there are court precedents that have extended Fair Use to include many non-educational but still non-profit uses of the work)
That last one, #4, is what should legitimize some forms of what's now considered "piracy". P2P filesharing, for example, extends market and adds value to the work.
Now, in this specific case of GTA:San Andreas I'm not really arguing that it's "ok". But if I were the one making this game, I'd probably take it with a grain of salt, try to make as much noise about it as possible (remember, no such thing as bad press), and buy a bigger safe to hold all the money this action will make me.
I didn't respond point by point to your post, but I have reread my post and decided it is a complete response to your entire post.
What tune would you be playing were I to walk into your house, sit down, flip on the TV and make myself at home? Maybe on my way out I'll grab some stuff I find appealing.
I'd say "damn sweetheart, there is a God, and he just created a TV in our house. That bastard.":) (No TV, get it?)
Bottom line: Some group of people went to a hell of a lot of trouble to create that game so they could make the money they need to live. If some of them make a little more money so be it. That's the American Dream after all. To make a ton of cash doing something you love to do and raise your standard of living.
I'm crying, I really am. These guys making the game are each likely to be making 2-5 times what I'm making and are likely to gross more on sales when the game is finally released than I'll ever see in my lifetime. Additionally, I just know that the game being leaked is going to generate additional sales they wouldn't have otherwise gotten. This news of the leak just creates more press for the game, and in this business there's no such thing as bad press. So I'm really crying that some minority of folks are playing a leaked version of the game without paying for it.
Now I'll go scrape the soles of my shoes and try to make a little stew out of it. It's not like I have any food anymore.
The U.S. Constitution gives that right. You do recognize those rights as granted by the U.S. Constitution right ?
Actually, it doesn't. The US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) gives Congress the power to temporarily secure rights to works of Art and Invention. A reason is given, but I don't recall the exact verbiage. It's along hte lines of "We'll secure these rights temporarily for the Creator, so in the long run we'll have the work for all of society".
We inherited our IP legacy from the Brits, and philosophically it is identical to the Brits.
You are denying them the profit they have a right to.
Ah, another socialist? Since when do corporations (or anybody, for that matter) have a right to profit? By copying their game, you're not denying them their right to profit. They don't have that right to begin with. OTOH, if you copy the game, and then sell your copy, and don't pay any royalties, you will be committing copyright infringement.
Once upon a time, if money didn't change hands, no infringement had occurred. That's called "Fair Use". Copyright is supposed to temporarily secure (by creating) a person's right to commercially exploit their Creative Work on the free market. It is not supposed to prevent non-commercial uses of the word, and it protects some commercial uses (which is why we can include scene snippets from a feature film in a review if we wanted).
because the end result is that people are breaking the law.
If the law no longer represents the good of society and/or is no longer consistent with the intent of the law, and numerous attempts have been made to address the problems with the law and most/all have failed, what recourse would you suggest?
Oh, come on. It's obvious the human genome is an lossy encoded version of the same file being played back by a number of buggy implementations of the standard.
As long as you don't try too hard to answer the question with certainty at this time, considering how very little we know.
Several possibilities come to mind, though. Intelligent design is one of them. Intelligent design also doesn't automatically lead to God. We know genetic engineering is possible, given enough technology and understanding of the science. We can also at least conceive of the possibility of an organism just arbitrarily changing its dna. So intelligent design is certainly a possibility without having to resort to religion to explain the intelligence. And hanging on to it as a question to be answered at such a time as we have enough information to make a reasonable hypothesis is valuable.:)
The grandparent has pieces of truth ("theories are never proven true"), but doesn't seem to have it quite right (since laws are never "proven true", either).
Go easy on him, will ya? Before posting that he got frame-dragged out of his chair by up to 6 feet (10% margin of error) when his fat mother-in-law walked to the bathroom.
Say, you're done coding. All you have to do is go make tiny changes to shut up the errors. Probably won't have to think too hard how to fix them.
I bow before your intelligence, for you can write code without debugging it at all and only have "a couple of errors." You must truly be a coding genius. That or you're talking out you're ass. I haven't met anyone who can do what you just described. Not any students and not any teachers.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops. Preview is not my friend, the little twerp.
Dude you almost made me choke on my chicken.
Dude you almost made me choke my chicken.
PETA would be outraged, at least until they too are replaced my a grid of rat neurons.
Why wait? We can already replace them with a 3-line perl script...
255 my friend, 255.
Actually, 256 was the right number. The nodes would be numbered from 0 to 255, but there would actually be 256 of them.
Unless they were built by Microsoft, in which case there would be 257 of them, since the array would contain both a [0] and a [256].
I'm sorry for my friend here, he's still learning.
There's no need to apologize, obviously.
I love that one by Courtney Love. I didn't realize it was a speech, but I link to Salon's archive of it all the time. Her speech shows exactly how copyright law has failed.
I'm actually moving into the music business. Starting my first sortie right now, doing internet promotion for a band here in Austin that's got a fair amount of fans all over the south. I'm looking forward to finally getting involved rather than whining from the sidelines. :)
Aha. So maybe it was more of what I thought at the top of the thread, eh? I thought your first response to his post was a joke and I chuckled. :)
Nevermind then. Carry on, and so forth. :)
You have to take a few more steps back and look at what's going on in the whole industry, I think. The purpose of copyright law is to provide a way for creative types like musicians to possibly make a living on the free market, thus allowing them to be more productive, make more, and so forth. The target end result is a rich culture with lots of diversity.
Payola (among other aspects of the music business) works against that goal by making it possible for small-time groups to be kept out of the mix entirely, solely by making the price to play too high through immense generosity to the radio stations. This creates a situation where the single most common method of hearing new music is controlled by the people who have the largest interest in controlling the music available on the market. So it shuts out bands that the record labels think won't be worth any money.
This flies in the face of the noble intent of copyright by removing the free market as an input to how much money musicians make.
Sure, point out all sorts of alternate ways to find music (with the #1 method being what your friends tell you, of course), but no matter how many alternatives have existed historically, radio was the most-used, therefore the government has an interest in stepping in and doing something.
Now, I'm not saying the government did it for the sake of their precious copyright laws, but it does make sense to me in that context. I'm also not saying I'm opposed to record labels just buying 3-5 minutes of airtime and having the DJ say "The last 3-5 minutes of airtime were sponsored by Dadadadadada Records". I'm opposed to the record labels controlling the medium rather than competing within the medium. I'm opposed to the fact that no matter how many people call the radio station and request a specific song, it still won't get played unless the record label pays the radio station, so we don't even get to vote directly by calling the radio station. I'm opposed to so-called "request hours" that are the same as their regular playlist because the only requests they play are for songs that are already on their playlist.
Ack, we can argue all day long, and I'm sleepy and probably didn't completely make my point. Hopefully I at least gave you an alternate way of looking at it.
I think you're trying to misunderstand what he's saying, or you're just trying to defeat him rather than disagree and discuss.
Without consulting a dictionary, I tend to think "generally" means something like "most, but not all, of the time". So, let's say 80% of the time. So 80% of the time market regulation is bad. 20% of the time, market regulation is good. Antitrust law falls in the 20% category rather than the 80% category. The guy then went on to give examples of regulation that he figures falls into the 80% and the 20% categories.
I'm not saying I agree with him. Actually, I generally agree with him. In this case, I agree with him approximately 85%, based on what he has said. He may post more, in which case I may find I agree more or less than I did before.
That is, since the market is limited, the industry benefits from everyone liking the same things. It is much more difficult to manage and sell 1000 bands than it is to manage and sell 10. And now everyone's favorite:
Except that the record labels don't manage the bands. The bands get their own management, their own booking, their own agent, their own lawyer, their own accountant. The bands pay to record the record, pay for the artwork, etc. The band also pays the producer, iirc.
The record label pays for their portion of the marketing (which is payola, and a few other things). The record label pays to print the record. That's pretty much it. They then proceed to charge back most of their costs to, guess who?, the band. In the end, the record label winds up paying damn near nothing, selling the thing a million times, and then sues the band for not paying their bills, the whole time keeping their royalties until they pay up.
And the bands can't start doing anything about it as long as radio and MTV are pay to play.
Then along comes the internet, and the bands have a viable replacement for radio, new distribution channels, and new marketing channels that are independent of the record label, and the labels can't control it. Freedom is around the corner for the bands. So naturally the labels step in and try to stop it. That fight is still waging.
In the meantime, this fella comes along and decides to fight the record labels on their own turf. :) I find this good news, I hope he fights hard and wins.
The president has the authority to overtake a country for their oil and to demonstrate their power (kinda like picking on a little kid so the other kids see how tough you are and fear you) and fabricate evidence to justify such overtaking. Sport teams cannot do that.
I suspect that if we had sent the Dallas Cowboys and their cheerleaders instead of the army, the job in Iraq would already be done.
downloaded QBasic today to run a small prog I wrote years ago to process unwanted commas in the middle of CSV files (in-between quotes)!
As much as I love legacy code, why didn't you just take 5 seconds to rewrite the small prog in python with their nice csv module? Or perl, or whatever.
*laugh* I think OOP is more intuitive...
Even ignoring the fact you said a particular argument was "pointless" then almost immediately used the exact same argument, you are still full of BS.
I can cite. I don't expect you to believe me unless I actually do it, and it's late and I have a computer I need to fix so I can get paid, and this discussion will probably time out before I find time, but I can cite. There are plenty of studies available that back me up (and I have posted cites numerous times in the past, so if you google my user id and limit it to slashdot.org you should find some of them).
But I understand you figuring I'm full of shit unless I actually post cites, and I can live with it. :)
Yeah, if you completely ignore #1: "The purpose and character of the use". If the purpose of the use is to consume a game, movie, music, etc. without paying for it, then its not fair use.
That's a pretty one-dimensional way of looking at it. Because I can (and have) consumed games in the past that resulted in my recommendation being given and several sales being made. On a large scale (and this happens, like it or not, the cites I haven't provided that you won't respect until I do say so), this actually increases the market. In the case of P2P filesharing, music (and to a lesser extent, movies) are able to penetrate markets that were previously impenetrable, and they can do it without spending $millions like they already spend on the markets that are already saturated. This market penetration actually increases the value of the product significantly. The courts have the power to weigh this against #1 (as they did with radio in the past), provide a slap-on-the-wrist sort of fine and force a solution (again, as they did with radio). Instead, the courts decided to give awards so high that it pushes a business into bankruptcy and ruins individuals.
Anyway, since I don't actually have the time to dig up citations (and I never really did manage to collect them into one place, I should do that), and my argument falls down without them, and every single poster that has responded to me has also refused to cite, there's little point to pursuing this discussion further. next time this comes up when I'm paying attention, hopefully I'll have time to cite. ;)
Ha-ha. Irrelevant. I get so sick of people trying to put words in my mouth that I only respond to those questions by pointing out the flaw in the question, and refusing to answer it until it is restated. Since the AC chickened out and didn't restate his question, I have nothing to answer. :)
Call it pedantic if you want, but I have neither judged you nor have I put words in your mouth. Think about it.
False. It shrinks the market. Most software developers already offer demos of their product. End users are already able to try most software. Piracy removes many more people from the market than it adds. How does selling fewer copies, and thus making less money, add value to a work?
I asked you to back up this statement in my last post, and I will not further discuss this until you do. What you have offered is assertion that appears to me grounded on speculation, and I'd like to see what it's grounded on. Since this is the basis of your position, I don't see how you would be able to object to providing actual evidence in place of assertions.
Here's a little clue. Any sentence that starts with the words "So what you are saying" or variations of those words is bullshit. It's a common tactic to take something someone says, use the words "So what you're saying", and manipulate what was actually said into something that is either intended to inflame the original talker or is now diametrically opposed to the original talker's position. It's a discrediting tactic, and serves no useful purpose in intelligent discourse.
Emphasis for quotes, bold text added for emphasis.
Except that you and others may have purchased the item had it not be made available via illegal means. Thus you are infringing on their rights to grant license to those who they choose to, and by the method and means that they choose.
You also may purchase the item now that you've played it and see how much the game rocks. Conversely, you may not have purchased the item having never played it, deciding to spend your money on something else. Arguing what any user may or may not do as a result of copying something is pointless, there are many possibilities. A better data set wouldn't include maybes or possiblies, it would instead show what percentage of a given demographic, after illegally copying the game, will a) purchase the game, b) delete it and never play it again, c) copy it for their friends. Show me some real numbers that show how the practice definitely hurts the producers, no matter how marginal the "hurt" may be.
"Fair Use" is not making as many copies as you want and giving them to people. Fair Use is being able to say, make MP3s from your CD (or vice-versa), record a TV show or radio broadcast, not distribute as many copies to as many people as you want.
From the fucking law:
(I didn't dig up citations, but there are court precedents that have extended Fair Use to include many non-educational but still non-profit uses of the work)
That last one, #4, is what should legitimize some forms of what's now considered "piracy". P2P filesharing, for example, extends market and adds value to the work.
Now, in this specific case of GTA:San Andreas I'm not really arguing that it's "ok". But if I were the one making this game, I'd probably take it with a grain of salt, try to make as much noise about it as possible (remember, no such thing as bad press), and buy a bigger safe to hold all the money this action will make me.
I didn't respond point by point to your post, but I have reread my post and decided it is a complete response to your entire post.
What tune would you be playing were I to walk into your house, sit down, flip on the TV and make myself at home? Maybe on my way out I'll grab some stuff I find appealing.
I'd say "damn sweetheart, there is a God, and he just created a TV in our house. That bastard." :) (No TV, get it?)
Bottom line: Some group of people went to a hell of a lot of trouble to create that game so they could make the money they need to live. If some of them make a little more money so be it. That's the American Dream after all. To make a ton of cash doing something you love to do and raise your standard of living.
I'm crying, I really am. These guys making the game are each likely to be making 2-5 times what I'm making and are likely to gross more on sales when the game is finally released than I'll ever see in my lifetime. Additionally, I just know that the game being leaked is going to generate additional sales they wouldn't have otherwise gotten. This news of the leak just creates more press for the game, and in this business there's no such thing as bad press. So I'm really crying that some minority of folks are playing a leaked version of the game without paying for it.
Now I'll go scrape the soles of my shoes and try to make a little stew out of it. It's not like I have any food anymore.
The U.S. Constitution gives that right. You do recognize those rights as granted by the U.S. Constitution right ?
Actually, it doesn't. The US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) gives Congress the power to temporarily secure rights to works of Art and Invention. A reason is given, but I don't recall the exact verbiage. It's along hte lines of "We'll secure these rights temporarily for the Creator, so in the long run we'll have the work for all of society".
We inherited our IP legacy from the Brits, and philosophically it is identical to the Brits.
Further, excellent, reading on the subject can be had here.
You are denying them the profit they have a right to.
Ah, another socialist? Since when do corporations (or anybody, for that matter) have a right to profit? By copying their game, you're not denying them their right to profit. They don't have that right to begin with. OTOH, if you copy the game, and then sell your copy, and don't pay any royalties, you will be committing copyright infringement.
Once upon a time, if money didn't change hands, no infringement had occurred. That's called "Fair Use". Copyright is supposed to temporarily secure (by creating) a person's right to commercially exploit their Creative Work on the free market. It is not supposed to prevent non-commercial uses of the word, and it protects some commercial uses (which is why we can include scene snippets from a feature film in a review if we wanted).
because the end result is that people are breaking the law.
If the law no longer represents the good of society and/or is no longer consistent with the intent of the law, and numerous attempts have been made to address the problems with the law and most/all have failed, what recourse would you suggest?
Oh, come on. It's obvious the human genome is an lossy encoded version of the same file being played back by a number of buggy implementations of the standard.
As long as you don't try too hard to answer the question with certainty at this time, considering how very little we know.
Several possibilities come to mind, though. Intelligent design is one of them. Intelligent design also doesn't automatically lead to God. We know genetic engineering is possible, given enough technology and understanding of the science. We can also at least conceive of the possibility of an organism just arbitrarily changing its dna. So intelligent design is certainly a possibility without having to resort to religion to explain the intelligence. And hanging on to it as a question to be answered at such a time as we have enough information to make a reasonable hypothesis is valuable. :)
Now mod me down -1, Nutty, please.
The grandparent has pieces of truth ("theories are never proven true"), but doesn't seem to have it quite right (since laws are never "proven true", either).
Go easy on him, will ya? Before posting that he got frame-dragged out of his chair by up to 6 feet (10% margin of error) when his fat mother-in-law walked to the bathroom.
If you start designing on paper the functions/object/interfaces/etc for your program, then start coding.
I don't know how to break this to you, but if you write good logical constructs in english, then start reading.
Say, you're done coding. All you have to do is go make tiny changes to shut up the errors. Probably won't have to think too hard how to fix them.
I bow before your intelligence, for you can write code without debugging it at all and only have "a couple of errors." You must truly be a coding genius. That or you're talking out you're ass. I haven't met anyone who can do what you just described. Not any students and not any teachers.
You've obviously never used Python before.