Is it fair for the hundreds of thousands of people who work at Exxon to pay for the foolishness of that captain who ran aground up in Alaska? Is it fair for the thousands of hard working folks at GM or Ford to pay when some drunk drives a car into a tree? Is it fair when the hundreds of hard working rock and roll stars (hah) lose their retirement because some decides to "share" the music with hundreds of thousands of their closest friends?
This is a problem for the typical slashdot poster. Corporations are made of people too and juries routinely come down hard on corporations. That's celebrated here because the jury is hanging some big, faceless machine. But there the corporation is made up of people and all of those fines at Exxon came out of the retirement fund of thousands of people.
The fine is a bit tough. I wish it would be smaller. But as long as file sharing is so prevalent and as long as file "sharing" receives so much tacit support in fora like this one, high fines are the only way for the RIAA to fight back.
Sorry to hear that. My vague memory is that the pubs were once highly regulated and prevented from raising beer prices. But clearly that can only go on so long before the pubs go out of business. I wonder if there are any price constraints any longer?
Alas, the tax rates are dramatically higher there and they probably sock it to the cell phone folks. There are many things to love about Britain, but it's not known for selling stuff on the cheap. Practically everything costs more there except, perhaps, for warm beer. And if memory serves me right, there was a raft of regulations that kept prices of beer cheap. That's a simple way to buy off the masses.
BTW, before I get flamed, I should point out that most people aren't pirates. Well, if they are, I don't have any data. But I think that most people who put expelled content are pirates. Big difference.
As much as I want to support fair use and limit copyright, I have to admit that 99.999% of the questionable content I see on places like YouTube are put up there without the permission of the rightful owner. Now, I bet most of the time the rightful owner doesn't care. And most of the time, they're kind of flattered. But I'm not at all surprised that few file counter claims because there's so much copyrighted stuff out there on these sites.
It shows how to bolt together car differentials to solve all NP complete problems. They only need a linear number of differntials (2x the variables in 3SAT). Sounds awesome, right? The problem is that the differntials need to be machined with a level of precision that increases expoentially. And precision costs cash.
Is it possible that the quantum computers require the same steeply increasing level of precision? Enquiring minds want to know?
Somehow I would respect you more if you were equally angry about both types of violations. Why is it irrelevent if the authors rights are violated, but [cue Dragnet sound track] a violation of the law when your toes are stepped upon?
But why should he have to? Imagine if we treated physical goods the same way? What if I could, say, steal your lawn furniture and it would be your responsibility to hire a lawyer to tell me that it's yours? Seriously.
Oh sure. Go ahead. Criticize. But please try to remember that many writers are doing the best that they can. Jerry Pournelle has been complaining to Scribd for some time, but they just ignore his email messages. Not every writer has chosen Cory's path. There's a real danger, though, if Cory's love of anarchy kills the copyright system. I like paying for big Hollywood movies, the morning paper, and the latest song from iTunes. I want some of my money to go back to the creator to encourage them. Oh sure, the conglomerates steal some of it, but at least some gets through. If anarchy wins, well, the writers and artists will get nothing. And there's a real chance that it will win if the systems like Scripd are able to hide behind the complexity of the DMCA and drive bookstores out of business, well, I would have to rely upon free bloggers. I love them, but I love the professions too.
Oh, you're right. But please supply a better system if you can. I'm all ears. I just don't think it's fair for a few suckers to pay for the content while everyone else tries to justify their sharing/theft by growsing about the current model.
To me, copyright is like gravity. It's a weight on your shoulders, but it's better than floating off into the vaccuum of outer space.
I've poked around sites like YouTube, Revver, and Scribd and while they have many great, original, non-infringing files, I think that the vast majority of them are put up there without the knowledge of the copyright holder.
And it will only get worse. It was clearly foolish for the organization to send out notices about content it doesn't own. But it's actually a bit counterproductive to make a big deal about this. Written between the lines seems to be the claim, "The SFWA is a bunch of jerks. Whoo hoo. Now I can feel good about myself for pirating, er, sharing so much without paying."
Not every writer can get cash from the EFF to support a writing habit. Not every writer can get USC's bursars office to do the rights management. I wish Cory would cut the writers some slack and admit that the copyright system, however flawed, is really pretty fair. If there are n readers who pay for n copies, then everyone pays an equal amount. But if n people buy legit copies and m pirate the work, then it's not fair to the n folks.
Now Napster was great for you, me, and all of other hepcats, but it kind of sucked for the artists and the recording companies. And yes, I know that the recording companies rip off the artists. But if Napster rips off the recording companies, then the artists are guaranteed to get nothing.
I personally like iTunes and the iTunes store. I don't mind the DRM and I re-rip the few songs I need to move. It's a pain, yes, but I think the price is fair. So I think iTunes is infinitely times better than napster because at least some money is headed in the right direction. Even if only 5% makes it through to the artists, thats an infinitely greater amount than Napster ever paid them.
Sheesh. I owe so much to the artists who've written songs that have gotten me through some tough times. 99 cents is nothing compared to the gifts they've given.
My favorite analog computing paper comes from Steiglitz et al
see www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken .
I like the way to use car differentials to solve 3SAT. Pretty cool. It only requires O(n) differential equations where n is the number of clauses in the 3SAT equation. But I've heard that the result still requires an exponential amount of precision. At least according to some. Maybe an engineer could hack through what baffles the theory heads.
Again, I hate to be negative. But why would I cancel Shark Week or whatever else is on so I can show some documentary that's already reached it's entire target audience via BitTorrent?
Consider this script:
Lackey: One of our viewers is on the phone, sir. Do you want to take the call?
Moneyman: Why?
Lackey: They downloaded a film and loved it enough.
Moneyman: Great. What do they want from me?
Lackey: They want you to pay the guy and broadcast the film.
Moneyman: Why? So they can see it again?
Lackey: Apparently.
Moneyman: They've seen it already. They've shared it with their friends. Why?
Lackey: I don't know.
Moneyman: I'll think about it. [pause] No.
Also, the producers' work will be viewed by thousands of people, and probably reviewed by tens of professionals and might reach production company managers, who may hire them for their next movie...
My guess is that the folks in Hollywood are much more likely to see crowdsourcing and Creative Commons as a way to get cheap material. They'll pat this guy on the head, give him $1000 to set up some stick-it-to-the-man website, and then collect the results into a movie that's then released to theaters. The theaters will make their money on popcorn. The producers will make a ton off of the admissions fees. These cool dudes will get a tiny royalty after the Hollywood accounting machine gets done with them. It happens to actors and screenwriters all of the time.
Also, the producers' work will be viewed by thousands of people, and probably reviewed by tens of professionals and might reach production company managers, who may hire them for their next movie...
I hate to be negative, but I can't see some producer saying, "Gosh, these radical dudes really did a great job undermining the reason why I'm able to get million dollar paychecks. I think I'll hire them to do my next movie. And I'll pay them millions even though they have argued that file sharers shouldn't have to pay into this pool."
It's all well and good to stick it to the man. Just don't expect the man to be so impressed by your stick-to-it-tiveness and hire you immediately. Those kind of things only happen in Seinfeld .
I wish I could be optimistic for their bank account, but here's what will probably happen: the file sharing crowd will download it, watch it with a few beers, nod in constant agreement, curse the Man, and then raise a beer in a toast to the coolness of the producers. Perhaps a few will even contribute to the tip jar. But the jar won't fill up enough to pay for the time put into the project. And the producers sure won't make enough money to support themselves or a family so they can do such a cool thing again. Oh well.
Hint: Everyone contributes out of their self-interest. Some people like to talk and others just get their grins out of editing. The good news is that this still produces something of value. But even the most selfless librarian from Kansas is not going to go against self-interest. The real problem is your definition is not the same as my definition. Naturally I like mine better. But what if I like the fact that the intelligence agencies are protecting our country and you like the unvarnished truth. Both seem like good ideas within limits. Who chooses? Answer: the last one to edit a wikipedia piece.
I've heard this too-- but it seems like such a big deal that the big power companies would have started exploiting it already. Those long haul power lines must use a ton of copper. If they could save 90% of it, I would guess that they would do that already.
But what do I know?
I realize that they're talking about very, very small wires, but how about the big fat 12 gauge suckers in my wall? The price of copper is going through the roof. Is there any chance we can wire up our house with left over charcoal? I love to see the price of copper drop so we can go back to the days when a penny was actually worth a penny (or less).
Well, it only rocks when I play the right MP3, but it does almost everything that the Apple phone does except connect with the cellular network. The webbrowser isn't as nice, but it's really pretty good. And it's only about $250 now. The Nokia 770 and 800 are also quite nice. I've seen the 770 for $140 these days.
I have to agree. If you don't want a phone, there are many other choices that are pretty nice.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is fair?
Is it fair for the hundreds of thousands of people who work at Exxon to pay for the foolishness of that captain who ran aground up in Alaska? Is it fair for the thousands of hard working folks at GM or Ford to pay when some drunk drives a car into a tree? Is it fair when the hundreds of hard working rock and roll stars (hah) lose their retirement because some decides to "share" the music with hundreds of thousands of their closest friends?
This is a problem for the typical slashdot poster. Corporations are made of people too and juries routinely come down hard on corporations. That's celebrated here because the jury is hanging some big, faceless machine. But there the corporation is made up of people and all of those fines at Exxon came out of the retirement fund of thousands of people.
The fine is a bit tough. I wish it would be smaller. But as long as file sharing is so prevalent and as long as file "sharing" receives so much tacit support in fora like this one, high fines are the only way for the RIAA to fight back.
Sorry to hear that. My vague memory is that the pubs were once highly regulated and prevented from raising beer prices. But clearly that can only go on so long before the pubs go out of business. I wonder if there are any price constraints any longer?
Some other links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rip-Off_Britain http://www.rip-off.co.uk/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/476050.stm
Alas, the tax rates are dramatically higher there and they probably sock it to the cell phone folks. There are many things to love about Britain, but it's not known for selling stuff on the cheap. Practically everything costs more there except, perhaps, for warm beer. And if memory serves me right, there was a raft of regulations that kept prices of beer cheap. That's a simple way to buy off the masses.
BTW, before I get flamed, I should point out that most people aren't pirates. Well, if they are, I don't have any data. But I think that most people who put expelled content are pirates. Big difference.
Most people have no idea that the right exists.
As much as I want to support fair use and limit copyright, I have to admit that 99.999% of the questionable content I see on places like YouTube are put up there without the permission of the rightful owner. Now, I bet most of the time the rightful owner doesn't care. And most of the time, they're kind of flattered. But I'm not at all surprised that few file counter claims because there's so much copyrighted stuff out there on these sites.
One of my favorite papers is a neat one about analog computer by Vergis, Steiglitz and Dickerson:
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/MCS86.pdf
It shows how to bolt together car differentials to solve all NP complete problems. They only need a linear number of differntials (2x the variables in 3SAT). Sounds awesome, right? The problem is that the differntials need to be machined with a level of precision that increases expoentially. And precision costs cash.
Is it possible that the quantum computers require the same steeply increasing level of precision? Enquiring minds want to know?
I vaguely remember that NetApp machines run a stripped down version of BSD. So perhaps this is FUD from Sun.
Its not being ignored, its irrelevant.
Somehow I would respect you more if you were equally angry about both types of violations. Why is it irrelevent if the authors rights are violated, but [cue Dragnet sound track] a violation of the law when your toes are stepped upon?
But why should he have to? Imagine if we treated physical goods the same way? What if I could, say, steal your lawn furniture and it would be your responsibility to hire a lawyer to tell me that it's yours? Seriously.
when it is used so egregiously incorrectly
Oh sure. Go ahead. Criticize. But please try to remember that many writers are doing the best that they can. Jerry Pournelle has been complaining to Scribd for some time, but they just ignore his email messages. Not every writer has chosen Cory's path. There's a real danger, though, if Cory's love of anarchy kills the copyright system. I like paying for big Hollywood movies, the morning paper, and the latest song from iTunes. I want some of my money to go back to the creator to encourage them. Oh sure, the conglomerates steal some of it, but at least some gets through. If anarchy wins, well, the writers and artists will get nothing. And there's a real chance that it will win if the systems like Scripd are able to hide behind the complexity of the DMCA and drive bookstores out of business, well, I would have to rely upon free bloggers. I love them, but I love the professions too.
Very far from fair. In many, many ways
Oh, you're right. But please supply a better system if you can. I'm all ears. I just don't think it's fair for a few suckers to pay for the content while everyone else tries to justify their sharing/theft by growsing about the current model. To me, copyright is like gravity. It's a weight on your shoulders, but it's better than floating off into the vaccuum of outer space.
I've poked around sites like YouTube, Revver, and Scribd and while they have many great, original, non-infringing files, I think that the vast majority of them are put up there without the knowledge of the copyright holder.
And it will only get worse. It was clearly foolish for the organization to send out notices about content it doesn't own. But it's actually a bit counterproductive to make a big deal about this. Written between the lines seems to be the claim, "The SFWA is a bunch of jerks. Whoo hoo. Now I can feel good about myself for pirating, er, sharing so much without paying." Not every writer can get cash from the EFF to support a writing habit. Not every writer can get USC's bursars office to do the rights management. I wish Cory would cut the writers some slack and admit that the copyright system, however flawed, is really pretty fair. If there are n readers who pay for n copies, then everyone pays an equal amount. But if n people buy legit copies and m pirate the work, then it's not fair to the n folks.
Now Napster was great for you, me, and all of other hepcats, but it kind of sucked for the artists and the recording companies. And yes, I know that the recording companies rip off the artists. But if Napster rips off the recording companies, then the artists are guaranteed to get nothing.
I personally like iTunes and the iTunes store. I don't mind the DRM and I re-rip the few songs I need to move. It's a pain, yes, but I think the price is fair. So I think iTunes is infinitely times better than napster because at least some money is headed in the right direction. Even if only 5% makes it through to the artists, thats an infinitely greater amount than Napster ever paid them.
Sheesh. I owe so much to the artists who've written songs that have gotten me through some tough times. 99 cents is nothing compared to the gifts they've given.
My favorite analog computing paper comes from Steiglitz et al see www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken . I like the way to use car differentials to solve 3SAT. Pretty cool. It only requires O(n) differential equations where n is the number of clauses in the 3SAT equation. But I've heard that the result still requires an exponential amount of precision. At least according to some. Maybe an engineer could hack through what baffles the theory heads.
Again, I hate to be negative. But why would I cancel Shark Week or whatever else is on so I can show some documentary that's already reached it's entire target audience via BitTorrent?
Consider this script:
Lackey: One of our viewers is on the phone, sir. Do you want to take the call?
Moneyman: Why?
Lackey: They downloaded a film and loved it enough.
Moneyman: Great. What do they want from me?
Lackey: They want you to pay the guy and broadcast the film.
Moneyman: Why? So they can see it again?
Lackey: Apparently.
Moneyman: They've seen it already. They've shared it with their friends. Why?
Lackey: I don't know.
Moneyman: I'll think about it. [pause] No.
Also, the producers' work will be viewed by thousands of people, and probably reviewed by tens of professionals and might reach production company managers, who may hire them for their next movie...
My guess is that the folks in Hollywood are much more likely to see crowdsourcing and Creative Commons as a way to get cheap material. They'll pat this guy on the head, give him $1000 to set up some stick-it-to-the-man website, and then collect the results into a movie that's then released to theaters. The theaters will make their money on popcorn. The producers will make a ton off of the admissions fees. These cool dudes will get a tiny royalty after the Hollywood accounting machine gets done with them. It happens to actors and screenwriters all of the time.
Also, the producers' work will be viewed by thousands of people, and probably reviewed by tens of professionals and might reach production company managers, who may hire them for their next movie...
I hate to be negative, but I can't see some producer saying, "Gosh, these radical dudes really did a great job undermining the reason why I'm able to get million dollar paychecks. I think I'll hire them to do my next movie. And I'll pay them millions even though they have argued that file sharers shouldn't have to pay into this pool."
It's all well and good to stick it to the man. Just don't expect the man to be so impressed by your stick-to-it-tiveness and hire you immediately. Those kind of things only happen in Seinfeld .
I wish I could be optimistic for their bank account, but here's what will probably happen: the file sharing crowd will download it, watch it with a few beers, nod in constant agreement, curse the Man, and then raise a beer in a toast to the coolness of the producers. Perhaps a few will even contribute to the tip jar. But the jar won't fill up enough to pay for the time put into the project. And the producers sure won't make enough money to support themselves or a family so they can do such a cool thing again. Oh well.
Hint: Everyone contributes out of their self-interest. Some people like to talk and others just get their grins out of editing. The good news is that this still produces something of value. But even the most selfless librarian from Kansas is not going to go against self-interest. The real problem is your definition is not the same as my definition. Naturally I like mine better. But what if I like the fact that the intelligence agencies are protecting our country and you like the unvarnished truth. Both seem like good ideas within limits. Who chooses? Answer: the last one to edit a wikipedia piece.
I've heard this too-- but it seems like such a big deal that the big power companies would have started exploiting it already. Those long haul power lines must use a ton of copper. If they could save 90% of it, I would guess that they would do that already. But what do I know?
I realize that they're talking about very, very small wires, but how about the big fat 12 gauge suckers in my wall? The price of copper is going through the roof. Is there any chance we can wire up our house with left over charcoal? I love to see the price of copper drop so we can go back to the days when a penny was actually worth a penny (or less).
Well, it only rocks when I play the right MP3, but it does almost everything that the Apple phone does except connect with the cellular network. The webbrowser isn't as nice, but it's really pretty good. And it's only about $250 now. The Nokia 770 and 800 are also quite nice. I've seen the 770 for $140 these days. I have to agree. If you don't want a phone, there are many other choices that are pretty nice.
Perhaps it subsidized and it's just so expensive that the subsidies only bring it down to $600?
It should arrive yesterday if this thing really works.