Obviously they aren't literally breaking into their houses.. please..
I seriously hope that someone starts taking all your code against your wishes and gives you nothing in return.
I wonder how long you would have a job if you didn't get paid for what your work produced or helped to produce more effectively? I'm willing to bet either you or your company would decide that it wasn't working out in pretty damn short order.
Then *you* might grasp that there really isn't that big a difference.. copyright is a construct society has agreed upon to protect the value of your work.
Copyright is what gives the holder the power in our society to decide if you'd like to give that work away for free or under some other set of terms.
This control is how music/movie and other studios get their large up front investments back and hopefully profit.. it is also how the GPL enforces its rule of returning modifications and on and on.
If you don't like the terms, nothing is forcing you from using the work. However, just because you don't agree to the terms doesn't mean that you are entitled to take it anyways! (stealing!)
Taking someone's work? You mean that all these downloaders are forcing their way into movie studios, and acting in the actors' places, to take their jobs away from them?
In a word. Yes.
I know the popular slashdot notion is that the studios are huge faceless corporations bent on world domination.. but the reality is this stuff costs money and time to make. ie. work.
Also, there are a lot more every day working stiffs on a movie set than there are movie stars/producers making millions.
The more you decide that you are, for some unfathomable reason, entitled to these peoples work.. the less these companies have to reinvest in new projects and the less work their workers will have in the future.
Just because the product of their labour is easily copied does not make the value of their work or their rights over it any less.. we need something to protect the investment these people make... oh I know. COPYRIGHT!
I know exactly what stealing means.. I just don't try to weasel my way out of it with some technicality.
Please don't start another "it isn't stealing it is copyright violation" OR "it isn't stealing because they haven't been deprived of their original copy argument".
No, they'll use the lack of interest for this site as "evidence" that people are only interested in ripping them off and getting things for free.
And for many of the people in this crowd.. they will be correct.
First the studios have content that is not available online. People download it for free like crazy because it is "convenient".
Then the studios offer online in various forms. People download it for free like crazy because "it costs too much" or "it has DRM".
Then the studios reduce the costs on the online offerings, perhaps subsidized with advertising, and loosen the DRM. People download content for free because.. they can.. and claim it isn't stealing because of xyz b.s. argument.
Morale of the story: people will justify stealing stuff as long as they can find some argument, however pathetic, to support them. Just another case of Internet anonymity gone wrong.
You're paying an extra 9 dollars for the physical media, shelf space in the store, overhead of the store employees, the store profit margin and advertising.
If they offer online at a dollar a track, possibly (but not always) with some DRM to ensure they get paid after a certain amount of fair use (I think iTunes is 5??).. they do sell a lot (iTunes), but less than they used to, and people are still stea.. I mean doing the old copyright infringement left and right for free. $.99 > 0.
If they offer on CD (at better quality and unencumbered by DRM) and charge more to cover the copies they know will get made incidentally and during what most people would call fair use.. it "costs too much and they are ripping us off"
Basically what I think it boils down to at the end of the day is that as long as they are charging more than nothing people are going to come up with these bogus arguments about how it is the record industry's fault for not "changing" with the times.
The capability of doing this has type of thing has been around for quite some time despite the new buzz being spun on it the last few years. From timesharing on old mainframes to Citrix for windows based systems to virtual machines, the capability for hosted/on-demand solutions has been around for a long long time and has never caught on in a big way.
Certainly some people use hosted solutions but not for the most important parts of their business. Only for commodity processes that they don't really want to use to differentiate themselves.
My opinion is that as more and more of the requirements to most businesses become a commodity, the appeal of these services go down. For 2 reasons:
1) The price of hardware is cheaper than ever, the pricing for running virtual machines is cheaper than ever, bandwidth is cheaper and on and on.. and so the cost of having an in house solution similar to these clouds is also cheaper than ever. Falling prices also crimp the margins a hosting service can possibly have, thereby limiting the support/new services that can be offered.
2) As so many business requirements become a commodity, the value of how things are done *uniquely* at an organization as well as the resulting data to support decisions becomes more valuable. So organizations will be even less likely to put their crown jewels (the stuff that makes them unique) into a "cloud" that they don't control for fear of the secret recipe getting out.
Go check out the previous post about google calendar leaking information and the general non-chalant attitude from slashdotters.. then try to compare that to what would happen if it had been Hotmail.
This is slashdot. Google can do no wrong. They do no evil. They have so much brain power and are so hip and cutting-edge.
For example: If you were to post this article and replace Gmail with Microsoft's Hotmail it would be the end of the world and slashdoters would be rising up in the cafeteria to stab them with their plastic forks.
As it is, they make witty comments about how they don't care anyways.. because Google is good. Google is great. Google is benevolent and all knowing.
Oh, and due to the incredibly large scope of the copyright infringement going on at Youtube, it does not surprise me in the least that mistakes get made. That still have anything to do with Viacom's track record regarding the collection and use of personal information compared Google - which is in fact what you implied in your earlier post.
I'm not upset at all if people are ok sacrificing their information for free services.
I just found it ironic that people believe Google is fighting for the little guy against these evil dastardly companies. On the issue of how personal information is collected and stored I would love to see the Viacom track record compared to Google. We already know Google is storing and sharing tons of it.
My feeling is that you are just subscribing to the irrational slashdot-hate for the media companies in general.
I think it is funny how everyone is up in arms when Viacom might have gotten their hands on it.. and funny now that everything thinks that Google is the "good guy" for coming to an agreement with Viacom to anonymize the data.
Meanwhile glossing over the fact that Google has and continues to use the very data they were so worried about.. every day to target ads and whatever other purposes they have or find in the future for it.
I'm assuming once they look at these logs it will become fairly obvious that what pulls most of the traffic into Youtube is copyrighted media.
So now that big media is coming around and starting their own sites to offer their content, and subsidizing it with advertising etc.. it makes perfect sense to cut the middle man out.
The internet is a fickle place and just because Youtube is the darling right now doesn't mean it won't fade fast when the primary draw for the site is gone.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously they aren't literally breaking into their houses.. please..
I seriously hope that someone starts taking all your code against your wishes and gives you nothing in return.
I wonder how long you would have a job if you didn't get paid for what your work produced or helped to produce more effectively? I'm willing to bet either you or your company would decide that it wasn't working out in pretty damn short order.
Then *you* might grasp that there really isn't that big a difference.. copyright is a construct society has agreed upon to protect the value of your work.
Copyright is what gives the holder the power in our society to decide if you'd like to give that work away for free or under some other set of terms.
This control is how music/movie and other studios get their large up front investments back and hopefully profit.. it is also how the GPL enforces its rule of returning modifications and on and on.
If you don't like the terms, nothing is forcing you from using the work. However, just because you don't agree to the terms doesn't mean that you are entitled to take it anyways! (stealing!)
Cheers
Taking someone's work? You mean that all these downloaders are forcing their way into movie studios, and acting in the actors' places, to take their jobs away from them?
In a word. Yes.
I know the popular slashdot notion is that the studios are huge faceless corporations bent on world domination.. but the reality is this stuff costs money and time to make. ie. work.
Also, there are a lot more every day working stiffs on a movie set than there are movie stars/producers making millions.
The more you decide that you are, for some unfathomable reason, entitled to these peoples work.. the less these companies have to reinvest in new projects and the less work their workers will have in the future.
Just because the product of their labour is easily copied does not make the value of their work or their rights over it any less.. we need something to protect the investment these people make... oh I know. COPYRIGHT!
I know exactly what stealing means.. I just don't try to weasel my way out of it with some technicality.
Please don't start another "it isn't stealing it is copyright violation" OR "it isn't stealing because they haven't been deprived of their original copy argument".
No, they'll use the lack of interest for this site as "evidence" that people are only interested in ripping them off and getting things for free.
And for many of the people in this crowd.. they will be correct.
First the studios have content that is not available online. People download it for free like crazy because it is "convenient".
Then the studios offer online in various forms. People download it for free like crazy because "it costs too much" or "it has DRM".
Then the studios reduce the costs on the online offerings, perhaps subsidized with advertising, and loosen the DRM. People download content for free because.. they can.. and claim it isn't stealing because of xyz b.s. argument.
Morale of the story: people will justify stealing stuff as long as they can find some argument, however pathetic, to support them. Just another case of Internet anonymity gone wrong.
Obviously it won't stop all infringement, but it's a much saner response than suing your customers.
If they aren't paying in some way.. they aren't customers.
1) they ignore you
2) they laugh at you
3) they fight you
More like:
4) They make a record 60B this past year.
5) Geeks go cry in frustration.
I know everyone constantly says on slashdot that Microsoft has the same failing business model as the record and movie industry blah blah blah..
If microsoft is consistently wrong.. sign me up.. they just had a record $60B in revenue this year..
You're paying an extra 9 dollars for the physical media, shelf space in the store, overhead of the store employees, the store profit margin and advertising.
Duh!
What are they supposed to change?
If they offer online at a dollar a track, possibly (but not always) with some DRM to ensure they get paid after a certain amount of fair use (I think iTunes is 5??).. they do sell a lot (iTunes), but less than they used to, and people are still stea.. I mean doing the old copyright infringement left and right for free. $.99 > 0.
If they offer on CD (at better quality and unencumbered by DRM) and charge more to cover the copies they know will get made incidentally and during what most people would call fair use.. it "costs too much and they are ripping us off"
Basically what I think it boils down to at the end of the day is that as long as they are charging more than nothing people are going to come up with these bogus arguments about how it is the record industry's fault for not "changing" with the times.
I think that is very unlikely.
The capability of doing this has type of thing has been around for quite some time despite the new buzz being spun on it the last few years. From timesharing on old mainframes to Citrix for windows based systems to virtual machines, the capability for hosted/on-demand solutions has been around for a long long time and has never caught on in a big way.
Certainly some people use hosted solutions but not for the most important parts of their business. Only for commodity processes that they don't really want to use to differentiate themselves.
My opinion is that as more and more of the requirements to most businesses become a commodity, the appeal of these services go down. For 2 reasons:
1) The price of hardware is cheaper than ever, the pricing for running virtual machines is cheaper than ever, bandwidth is cheaper and on and on.. and so the cost of having an in house solution similar to these clouds is also cheaper than ever. Falling prices also crimp the margins a hosting service can possibly have, thereby limiting the support/new services that can be offered.
2) As so many business requirements become a commodity, the value of how things are done *uniquely* at an organization as well as the resulting data to support decisions becomes more valuable. So organizations will be even less likely to put their crown jewels (the stuff that makes them unique) into a "cloud" that they don't control for fear of the secret recipe getting out.
Any professional server or data center setup that does not include a UPS for a graceful shutdown... is almost by definition NOT professional.
Go check out the previous post about google calendar leaking information and the general non-chalant attitude from slashdotters.. then try to compare that to what would happen if it had been Hotmail.
bad news about Google will be: *insert fingers in ears* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA! I can't hear you! NA NA NA NA NA NA!
This is slashdot. Google can do no wrong. They do no evil. They have so much brain power and are so hip and cutting-edge.
For example: If you were to post this article and replace Gmail with Microsoft's Hotmail it would be the end of the world and slashdoters would be rising up in the cafeteria to stab them with their plastic forks.
As it is, they make witty comments about how they don't care anyways.. because Google is good. Google is great. Google is benevolent and all knowing.
The difference is that the network broadcasting it on the tele PAYS the content holder and then sells advertising time to make their own revenue.
You did know that, didn't you?
No thanks,
Enjoy the googleaid.
You're correct I must have copied the wrong link.. here ya go:
http://www.itworld.com/google-ad-network-080529
Oh, and due to the incredibly large scope of the copyright infringement going on at Youtube, it does not surprise me in the least that mistakes get made. That still have anything to do with Viacom's track record regarding the collection and use of personal information compared Google - which is in fact what you implied in your earlier post.
Cheers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jan/25/news.citynews Now, where is Viacom's track record with regards to collecting and using personal information?
I'm not upset at all if people are ok sacrificing their information for free services.
I just found it ironic that people believe Google is fighting for the little guy against these evil dastardly companies. On the issue of how personal information is collected and stored I would love to see the Viacom track record compared to Google. We already know Google is storing and sharing tons of it.
My feeling is that you are just subscribing to the irrational slashdot-hate for the media companies in general.
Apparently you didn't read Google's policy.
They have a number of clauses in there allowing them to share with 3rd parties..
Who saw this and felt a moment of relief? "Whew! No one will know how often I watch Jack/Ianto music vids."
You mean no one other than Google/Youtube and by proxy anyone they sell targeted ads for...
I agree.
I think it is funny how everyone is up in arms when Viacom might have gotten their hands on it.. and funny now that everything thinks that Google is the "good guy" for coming to an agreement with Viacom to anonymize the data.
Meanwhile glossing over the fact that Google has and continues to use the very data they were so worried about.. every day to target ads and whatever other purposes they have or find in the future for it.
The amount of data they have collected from their search engine and ads would probably boggle our minds.
As for the "Don't be evil"... I certainly wouldn't count on it.
I'm assuming once they look at these logs it will become fairly obvious that what pulls most of the traffic into Youtube is copyrighted media.
So now that big media is coming around and starting their own sites to offer their content, and subsidizing it with advertising etc.. it makes perfect sense to cut the middle man out.
The internet is a fickle place and just because Youtube is the darling right now doesn't mean it won't fade fast when the primary draw for the site is gone.
I've said this a few times before. Youtube is really just Napster 2.0 now with video!
I'm kind of surprised it took this long for them to be sued into oblivion.