sounds like a petulant child. How he must grit his teeth at the success of capitalism, given how much he seems to loathe it.
Still, I'm sure his ideal world where nobody ever produces anything intellectual again (people have bills to pay, so why spend your life working for free?), and we go back to manual work would be soooo much better.
Man, you have mixed up so many things that its difficult to unraffle it.
For instance : if our grandparents did something bad, do you think we should pay the price for it
WTF are you talking about? If you disagree with me you are claiing that if your grandparents invested in alnd, then you get to inherit their investment without limitation, and if they invested instead in creating software, books, music or other IP, that you don't deserve fuck all. Where is the logic here? Especially as in the 21st century, you are more likely to be able to leave IP to YOUR kids than property, as more and more of society work in producing IP and less and less in fencing off land...
1. While they like to treat it as real property, real property doesn't expire after a set period of time. Anyone stupid enough to build a business model assuming an asset that is supposed to become free after a set period of time is going to retain value forever deserves to lose their investment.
Interesting. The length of time I own my copyright is merely a number set by the current people in power. This is also true of land rights too. just ask a white farmer in Zimbabwe for a recent example. You think you own your house now, but if the government changes the law, you won't own fuck all. In such a situation... do you just deserve to lose your investment?
And lets remember there are things called leasehold. In other words, property ownership CAN expire. This idea that property ownership is perpetual, and that IP ownership is limited is just an arbitrary distinction with no real justification, no matter what that hippy stallman likes to insist.
If you really want physical property to be worth more as a long term investment than Intellectual property, then you will create a society where nobody creates anything, they just fight over the physical land, as it is the only thing with true value. Not exactly a recipe for a countries success in the 21st century.
In other news, people whose great great grandfathers fenced off land and invested in *property* retain the ownership to it still, despite having died many years ago. Nobody shows any sign of caring that they can inherit property which they contributed *nothing* towards, and have full expectation of leaving that same property to their children. yet if that property is intellectual rather than physical, there is huge outcry. Why the double standard?
because a big chunk of many populations expect to benefit from inheriting daddy's house, whereas the people who benefit from IP are a smaller number, and thus easily attacked.
All earnings from old IP are taxed. All earnings from property are taxed. What is the difference here?
Don't forget that if you need a 2 gig card, you likely have authored 20-30 gig of textures in your game. Who did that? Fairly well paid texture artists. And that pushes the costs of the game into the stratosphere. Games could have 1 guy doing textures back in the DOOM era, but now, if you want to have a shiny new FPS, and you are assuming 2 gig video cards and 20 gig of textures, then that means huge budgets. huge budgets means fewer games, cross-platform games dumbed down for the most popular console, and game design dumbed down for the lowest common denominator. I'd prefer games had some variety, took advantage of each platform, and stuck to lower production requirements personally...
I disagree. Paintings and photos are a visual medium. Even movies have sound too. Games have sound AND interaction. I play games to interact, not to see pretty things. If I want pretty, I can watch Revenge Of The Sith, or Lord Of The Rings, Or Naked Women. Games don't compete even vaguely with Hollywood in terms of graphics. They will always be many years behind due to being real time.
But hey, feel free to prioritize graphics, it means that reasonable video cards for the rest of us become dirt cheap:D. Late-adopter FTW.
not really. slashdot always amazes me for how many people can sit on their as and decry all the multi-millionaire media company bosses as IDIOTS, when if they had any sense, they would give away content that cost millions to make for free, because some guy on teh interweb reckons that will make them more money.
I bet they sit on their yachts sipping champagne and wishing they had as much business sense as the average slashdot poster.
"we will make more money by doing a deal to put our content for free or ad-supported on youtube than protecting our IP, but we calculate we will have better revenue if we do not take this guaranteed profitable route, in favour of betting our companies profits on winning a lawsuit"
You keep insisting that you hold the secret to profitability for viacom, by repeatedly insisting that all their content should be made freely available on the web paid for by adverts. Seriously, if you think this is such an awesome idea, why isn't every movie and TV producer on earth submitting their content to youtube?
wow, you know more about the internet and how it affects the market for viacoms products than viacom do...
Bullshit.
Why don't you go sell your incredible wisdom and business strategy abilities to them as a consultant for $500k a year then?
Everyone on/. thinks they are expert business strategists, but amazingly their strategies never manage to make them any real money (and thus put those dinosaur media companies out of business), and are only ever used in arguments to defend piracy of some sort or another...
By removing all of THEIR content from youtube, surely they are leaving this exciting new sector WIDE OPEN to people who want to (for some reason) make program they release for free?
If their 'business model is dead' (yawn) then you should be happy to see the product of such a dinosaur-system of content removed from youtube... You can't have it both ways.
Your tone suggests you know more about the video content industry than Viacom do, which suggests you must own a multi-billion dollar business right?
believe it or not, the people running movie and TV studios know a lot more about their business, how it makes money, how much money, from who, under what circumstances, than any of us here posting on slashdot.
there is a general tone when getting annoyed at copyright, that people adopt which runs along the lines of "why can't they numbskulls see that X would make them more money!!!!"
Could it not be that they *do* know how much they have to lose from having their content on youtube, and that they *do* know how much it gets them in terms of advertising, and have decided that they would prefer not to have that content available free for damned good business reasons.
Unless you have access to the spreadsheets at viacom HQ, you don't know what they know.
TVs do not (generally) have the equivalent of adblock. And there is no easy way to totally cover the users monitor for five minutes of fullscreen ads on the web that they cannot disable. It's totally different.
Internet advertising does work, but the payback per ad view is trivially small. I've experimented with ads on my site, and the revenue is even more laughable after the ad managers take their cut.
"Is the Pirate Bay a front for right wing extremists in Sweden? Yesterday our Epicenter blog, linked to an interesting YouTube video in which Tobias Andersson of The Pirate Bay if asked to defend the site against charges that Carl Lundstrom, former CEO of Rix Telecom and âoewell-known right-wing extremist in Sweden,â funded the early development of the site. [video after the jump]
Interesting, it turns out that Pirate Bay did take bandwidth and server space from Rix Telecom while is was controlled by Lundstrom, who, as Epicenter says, is probably going to end up being an MPAA/RIAA target at some point."
if you are fine with giving money to fascist millionaires rather than the people who make content that entertains you, then you are fucked up big time.
so if the people who make content earn money from their work, they are evil money grabbing fascists, but if the arrogant swedish cunts behind thepiratebay make money from that content whilst contributing fuck all, they are bloody heroes?
its amazing what bullshit idiots here will spout if it lets them feel good about stealing stuff. Mod me troll if you cant handle the truth, like I care what thieves think...
you are delusional if you think thepiratebay cares about anything but this:
Ad revenue
Thats what the site is there for, not fighting for anyone freedom, or privacy, or any other bullshit that they cloak it with. The site makes a virtue out of the fact that it hosts no technically illegal files, yet it cries about bandwidth to justify its extensive ads, and the fact that it is one of the highest earning sites on the web for ad revenue. On top of this, they trick the poor kids who love the site into buying t shirts, and even contributing to their Swiss bank account to buy a fucking island!
Hilarious.
As a major money-making organisation, I think its especially amazing that they manage to persuade their users that they are "sticking it to the man" by using the site. thepiratebay is just a front for a large scale criminal organisation to profit from the work of musicians, TV producers, actors and software developers. If you really think that those Swedish kids that they put on TV to represent them are the ones running that site, then you are really beyond help. Of course its all a front. And this new idea of theirs will not happen. Its designed to get headlines because headlines == traffic == ad revenue.
its very common if you have the misfortune to read 'digg' to hear kids who routinely leave their wifi open so that they think they claim that the 200GB of movies and music they got from thepiratebay were all downloaded by someone else using their wireless.
In other words, people knowingly and willingly compromise the security of the home network they sue to do on-line banking, so that they can get away with stealing music. Sad isn't it?
maybe you should care that people who develop stuff full time, and do a professional job actually have bills to pay, and may not be free as you are to give away their lifes work for nothing?
Or do you equate a song you write in a garage at the weekend with a movie like Iron Man?
*sigh* its amazing how people suddenly develop the religious need to defend bit-torrent sites offering nothing but copyrighted material, and people even march in the streets in protest at the thought of them being shut down. None of you can want the stuff that much, because you aren't potential customers, so what's the big fucking deal?
People pirate stuff because they are cheapskates who want something for nothing and think they wont get caught. anything more than this is just rationalizing and window-dressing.
Slashdot Mirror
sounds like a petulant child.
How he must grit his teeth at the success of capitalism, given how much he seems to loathe it.
Still, I'm sure his ideal world where nobody ever produces anything intellectual again (people have bills to pay, so why spend your life working for free?), and we go back to manual work would be soooo much better.
Man, you have mixed up so many things that its difficult to unraffle it.
For instance : if our grandparents did something bad, do you think we should pay the price for it
WTF are you talking about? If you disagree with me you are claiing that if your grandparents invested in alnd, then you get to inherit their investment without limitation, and if they invested instead in creating software, books, music or other IP, that you don't deserve fuck all.
Where is the logic here?
Especially as in the 21st century, you are more likely to be able to leave IP to YOUR kids than property, as more and more of society work in producing IP and less and less in fencing off land...
1. While they like to treat it as real property, real property doesn't expire after a set period of time. Anyone stupid enough to build a business model assuming an asset that is supposed to become free after a set period of time is going to retain value forever deserves to lose their investment.
Interesting.
The length of time I own my copyright is merely a number set by the current people in power. This is also true of land rights too. just ask a white farmer in Zimbabwe for a recent example. You think you own your house now, but if the government changes the law, you won't own fuck all.
In such a situation... do you just deserve to lose your investment?
And lets remember there are things called leasehold. In other words, property ownership CAN expire.
This idea that property ownership is perpetual, and that IP ownership is limited is just an arbitrary distinction with no real justification, no matter what that hippy stallman likes to insist.
If you really want physical property to be worth more as a long term investment than Intellectual property, then you will create a society where nobody creates anything, they just fight over the physical land, as it is the only thing with true value. Not exactly a recipe for a countries success in the 21st century.
In other news, people whose great great grandfathers fenced off land and invested in *property* retain the ownership to it still, despite having died many years ago.
Nobody shows any sign of caring that they can inherit property which they contributed *nothing* towards, and have full expectation of leaving that same property to their children.
yet if that property is intellectual rather than physical, there is huge outcry.
Why the double standard?
because a big chunk of many populations expect to benefit from inheriting daddy's house, whereas the people who benefit from IP are a smaller number, and thus easily attacked.
All earnings from old IP are taxed. All earnings from property are taxed. What is the difference here?
Don't forget that if you need a 2 gig card, you likely have authored 20-30 gig of textures in your game.
Who did that?
Fairly well paid texture artists. And that pushes the costs of the game into the stratosphere. Games could have 1 guy doing textures back in the DOOM era, but now, if you want to have a shiny new FPS, and you are assuming 2 gig video cards and 20 gig of textures, then that means huge budgets.
huge budgets means fewer games, cross-platform games dumbed down for the most popular console, and game design dumbed down for the lowest common denominator.
I'd prefer games had some variety, took advantage of each platform, and stuck to lower production requirements personally...
wii fit and wii sports. Lux, Dwarf Fortress. Pretty much all casual games. Peggle.
My games!
I disagree.
Paintings and photos are a visual medium. Even movies have sound too. Games have sound AND interaction.
I play games to interact, not to see pretty things. If I want pretty, I can watch Revenge Of The Sith, or Lord Of The Rings, Or Naked Women.
Games don't compete even vaguely with Hollywood in terms of graphics. They will always be many years behind due to being real time.
But hey, feel free to prioritize graphics, it means that reasonable video cards for the rest of us become dirt cheap :D. Late-adopter FTW.
not really. slashdot always amazes me for how many people can sit on their as and decry all the multi-millionaire media company bosses as IDIOTS, when if they had any sense, they would give away content that cost millions to make for free, because some guy on teh interweb reckons that will make them more money.
I bet they sit on their yachts sipping champagne and wishing they had as much business sense as the average slashdot poster.
wow. tinfoil hat detected!
So you think that accountants at viacom have said
"we will make more money by doing a deal to put our content for free or ad-supported on youtube than protecting our IP, but we calculate we will have better revenue if we do not take this guaranteed profitable route, in favour of betting our companies profits on winning a lawsuit"
don't make me laugh.
You keep insisting that you hold the secret to profitability for viacom, by repeatedly insisting that all their content should be made freely available on the web paid for by adverts.
Seriously, if you think this is such an awesome idea, why isn't every movie and TV producer on earth submitting their content to youtube?
Are they *all* wrong about their business?
because acting in a petty and childish way always enables you to retain the moral high ground.
I doubt this filtering works. Are you suggesting that it is impossible to find any viacom clips on youtube now?
wow, you know more about the internet and how it affects the market for viacoms products than viacom do...
Bullshit.
Why don't you go sell your incredible wisdom and business strategy abilities to them as a consultant for $500k a year then?
Everyone on /. thinks they are expert business strategists, but amazingly their strategies never manage to make them any real money (and thus put those dinosaur media companies out of business), and are only ever used in arguments to defend piracy of some sort or another...
eh?
By removing all of THEIR content from youtube, surely they are leaving this exciting new sector WIDE OPEN to people who want to (for some reason) make program they release for free?
If their 'business model is dead' (yawn) then you should be happy to see the product of such a dinosaur-system of content removed from youtube...
You can't have it both ways.
Your tone suggests you know more about the video content industry than Viacom do, which suggests you must own a multi-billion dollar business right?
believe it or not, the people running movie and TV studios know a lot more about their business, how it makes money, how much money, from who, under what circumstances, than any of us here posting on slashdot.
there is a general tone when getting annoyed at copyright, that people adopt which runs along the lines of "why can't they numbskulls see that X would make them more money!!!!"
Could it not be that they *do* know how much they have to lose from having their content on youtube, and that they *do* know how much it gets them in terms of advertising, and have decided that they would prefer not to have that content available free for damned good business reasons.
Unless you have access to the spreadsheets at viacom HQ, you don't know what they know.
TVs do not (generally) have the equivalent of adblock. And there is no easy way to totally cover the users monitor for five minutes of fullscreen ads on the web that they cannot disable.
It's totally different.
Internet advertising does work, but the payback per ad view is trivially small. I've experimented with ads on my site, and the revenue is even more laughable after the ad managers take their cut.
believe it or not, some people don't think that taking other peoples work for free is cool. When you grow up and get a job, you will understand.
http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/05/did_the_pirate_.html
"Is the Pirate Bay a front for right wing extremists in Sweden? Yesterday our Epicenter blog, linked to an interesting YouTube video in which Tobias Andersson of The Pirate Bay if asked to defend the site against charges that Carl Lundstrom, former CEO of Rix Telecom and âoewell-known right-wing extremist in Sweden,â funded the early development of the site. [video after the jump]
Interesting, it turns out that Pirate Bay did take bandwidth and server space from Rix Telecom while is was controlled by Lundstrom, who, as Epicenter says, is probably going to end up being an MPAA/RIAA target at some point."
if you are fine with giving money to fascist millionaires rather than the people who make content that entertains you, then you are fucked up big time.
so if the people who make content earn money from their work, they are evil money grabbing fascists, but if the arrogant swedish cunts behind thepiratebay make money from that content whilst contributing fuck all, they are bloody heroes?
its amazing what bullshit idiots here will spout if it lets them feel good about stealing stuff.
Mod me troll if you cant handle the truth, like I care what thieves think...
just goes to show how ignorant the average piratebay fans are then.
I bet the guys collecting the money were in stitches.
you are delusional if you think thepiratebay cares about anything but this:
Ad revenue
Thats what the site is there for, not fighting for anyone freedom, or privacy, or any other bullshit that they cloak it with. The site makes a virtue out of the fact that it hosts no technically illegal files, yet it cries about bandwidth to justify its extensive ads, and the fact that it is one of the highest earning sites on the web for ad revenue.
On top of this, they trick the poor kids who love the site into buying t shirts, and even contributing to their Swiss bank account to buy a fucking island!
Hilarious.
As a major money-making organisation, I think its especially amazing that they manage to persuade their users that they are "sticking it to the man" by using the site.
thepiratebay is just a front for a large scale criminal organisation to profit from the work of musicians, TV producers, actors and software developers. If you really think that those Swedish kids that they put on TV to represent them are the ones running that site, then you are really beyond help.
Of course its all a front. And this new idea of theirs will not happen. Its designed to get headlines because headlines == traffic == ad revenue.
do have any idea how childish you sound when you type 'Mafiaaa'?
Stop trying to justify taking other peoples work for free, its pathetic
its very common if you have the misfortune to read 'digg' to hear kids who routinely leave their wifi open so that they think they claim that the 200GB of movies and music they got from thepiratebay were all downloaded by someone else using their wireless.
In other words, people knowingly and willingly compromise the security of the home network they sue to do on-line banking, so that they can get away with stealing music.
Sad isn't it?
maybe you should care that people who develop stuff full time, and do a professional job actually have bills to pay, and may not be free as you are to give away their lifes work for nothing?
Or do you equate a song you write in a garage at the weekend with a movie like Iron Man?
*sigh*
its amazing how people suddenly develop the religious need to defend bit-torrent sites offering nothing but copyrighted material, and people even march in the streets in protest at the thought of them being shut down.
None of you can want the stuff that much, because you aren't potential customers, so what's the big fucking deal?
People pirate stuff because they are cheapskates who want something for nothing and think they wont get caught. anything more than this is just rationalizing and window-dressing.