oh dear. There was no trivial way to copy and distribute content back then, so copying other peoples work was not a problem. perhaps you would like to go back hundreds of years to a system of artistic patronage, where rich people told creative people what to make? I'm sure you would love to see all TV and Movies government funded, but personally I'd rather live in a world where we can have Fox news AND Michael Moore, rather than some government official or billionaire determining how the working classes are entertained.
despite the multiple usage of exclamation arks in your post, I remain unclear of where I have stated that books are a recent invention. Please highlight this in my post.
I've never argued for 95 year terms for copyright. I would personally be happier with shorter terms. However, when people on slashdot start whining that "teh whole copyright system is teh eviL" and use this as a justification for taking other peoples work for free, those of us who *do* create original work, are naturally inclined to defend the current system, and its defenders (even if that's the RIAA) against those idiots who seem to think that not only does the world owe them a living, but that the efforts of everyone creative in the world should be provided to them at zero cost.
Its great when everyone else works hard to entertain you for nothing, however, its not sustainable. I'm happy to pay $30 for someone to make pizza and provide a nice restaurant for me to eat it in, and I'm happy to pay $20 to a band to buy a copy of music that maybe took them a year to write, after maybe 10 years learning to play. I really don't give a fuck if the restaurant owner or the musician in question becomes rich from doing so. Just because some of them do, does not entitle me to take the fruits of their labour for free. Amazingly, I consider what *I* get for my money, and whether or not it's worth it to *me*.
"scientifically justified". Explain that one to me. My best mate is a scientist, and amazingly, he is not bamboozled by the concept that if someone writes a really good book, he should pay money to purchase a copy of the book.
Let me know about these other wonderful ways of rewarding investment in intellectual property. There is the current system, there is communism (hardly a hotbed of great IP), there is patronage, and government subsidy. Which one are you keen on? and feel free to explain how it will still give people the diversity of entertainment we currently have, from independent bands right up to ten million dollar action movies (which regardless of your personal view, millions of people enjoy).
firstly I'm British, so nice try on the US-bashing but you were a few thousand miles out. And yes, people WILL create works of art *as a hobby*. I can assure you, as someone who has developed IP (PC games) as a hobby after a full day at work), and then full time, it is MUCH easier, better, more productive, and leads to far better products when people can devote all their time to it. Would FireFly have got written if the writer was working as a plumber during the day? maybe, but it sure as hell would not be as good as it is when he can devote his full day to it.( and iof course without the royalty related system, no budget would be available to film the series at all).
If someone writes the greatest book ever written, I think we would all rather they wrote some more, and dedicated their time to doing so. I'm glad Iain M banks makes lots of money from his books, and can write them full time, rather than having to scribble them on the bus after a days work as an estate agent. Capitalism, and the free market are the method by which we allocate people to the tasks they are best at. J K Rowling is a better writer than she would be a supermarket worker, and capitalism has put her in her correct role. If nobody is ever rewarded for creating art, then art will always remain an amateurish sideline. I don't want all the entertainment in the world to be part time efforts created at weekends.
As for people saying "I build houses / teach kids and dont get royalties", well wahey, that's your decision pal. There is no law preventing you from staying in that industry, or even working on that basis. 99% of roylaties are earned by people who give up a regular salary in return for speculating on the success of their own hard work. People who bitch about others royalties are often very pleased to get regular paychecks, company health insurance and pension contributions, all things that those who rely on royalties give up in order to speculate on their own abilities.
Estate agents work on a percentage, musicians work on royalties, and office workers work for a fixed salary. Some office workers gamble on getting a bonus, or share options. All these different systems are available, and its your decisions as to which path you choose. I decided to move from regular salaried job to a royalty-based career. That's my decision, and my gamble. if you think working for royalties is such an obvious gravy train, quit your job now and start a business. I assure you, there is nobody stopping you from doing so.
when a cover is recorded and sold, royalties are paid to the original songwriter. When a cover is merely performed live, as I understand it, the licence paid by the venue covers it. But make no mistake, there is legal acceptance of the fact that the original songwriter should be compensated when their song is performed for money by other people.
what bullshit. And how exactly are you going to encourage people to create new works? J K Rowling (Harry Potter) was an unemployed single mother when she wrote her first novel. In your world, she would have gone to work stacking food in a supermarket instead of wasting her time thinking she might make money as a writer. Try to think it through before spouting knee-jerk anti-copyright nonsense. And don't make us laugh by suggesting donationware (seen not to work or anything but a trivial scale) or state sponsorship. I don't want the government to approve all entertainment, and neither should you.
Some of them will be yes. I used to know a few session guys, I even did some work myself once (not for royalties though). A lot of session guys do a LOT of work, most of which never amounts to anything at all, then suddenly, that guy who you did some bass playing for turns out to have a mega platinum album, in which case (if you are lucky and got a points deal), you can be collecting checks well into retirement. In a way, this is just like people who buy premium bonds or lottery tickets. 99% of sessions will not make you rich, so I'm not surprised they want to defend their earnings from the 1% that pay off big time. The public never see it like this, they just see "person X made $Y for 30 minutes work", and discount both the ten years of learning the trade, plus the thirty years of doing poorly paid work for little or no return. For every song, movie and TV show that earns an artist good money, they will have 5, 10 or 20 other shows where they earn absolutely nothing.
Sometimes, people complain about this saying "I don't get royalties in my job at all! its not fair", but this is always from people in jobs that earn far more *on average* than those highly speculative careers in entertainment. Some people like regular salaries and guaranteed returns. These people save their money in guaranteed bonds, and take jobs with salaries. other people like financial freedom, and are prepared to deal with the risk. they buy shares, and work on spec, in the hope of maybe striking it big. It's just two different outlooks, and there's no law saying you can't try both, but its only ever the people in safe jobs with pensions who complain vocally about how *some* people who took the other route appear to be better off. I'm no fan of Cliff Richard, but you bet your ass that when he was spending his youth writing songs and recording, he was surrounded by friends in regular-paid jobs with a higher standard of living, and job security. They probably thought he was wasting his life back then. However, it was his risk to take, and he deserves the rewards.
having said all that, I disagree with the need to extend copyright. I think 50 years is fine in all cases, and it certainly shouldn't go much more than the lifetime of the author. I do, however, strongly defend the concept of copyright, and the right for entertainers and IP developers to profit from their efforts when they put their own money and ass on a risky line to make it happen.
yes they did. although I suspect a lot of those session guys backed it too, yet the media only reports the names of the stars who are millionaires. So in fact, on the point of who supports copyright extension, David cameron is right, and you are falling for the medias shorthand.
agreed 100%. Nor will I ever put adverts in my own games. I haven't even tried the demo of BF2142, despite loving BF2, because its widely known to be full of ads.
The US is certainly losing my tourist money since they went all heavy on security. When people are on holiday, they really resent being fingerprinted, it seriously damages the mood. Since I stopped visiting the US, I've spent holidays in Canada, the Caribbean, south America and Scotland. And some of that money really should have gone to the US. I like your country, I got married there, I consider Las Vegas one of the best places I've ever visited, and my wife adores Yosemite. I just don't want to be treated like a terrorist on holiday. I don't understand why the US tourist industry doesn't speak out against this nonsense? Are they not annoyed at having their industry targeted? or is it their business boosted by paranoid citizens refusing to leave the country for holidays?
You still have service fees?
on
ATM Turns 40
·
· Score: 1
This is the US right? in the UK they tried to introduce them and suffered a serious consumer revolt. I haven't seen one that charges fees for years. In fact, the first bit of text on the screen of almost all UK ATMS is "you will not be charged for this" such was the backlash.
Same here. There is a ton of FUD about DRM. I haven't noticed any video or audio files or DVDs give me any problems whatsoever. Plus Vista has a nicer interface for playing DVDs and music than XP did. I suspect people complaining about DRM features are just paranoid that their bit-torrented movie rips might not work. Not an issue for me.
It's not. Vista is way nicer to sue than XP. I'd guess 95% of people on here moaning about vista have never used it. I use it every day and I'm very happy with it. It's an improvement in hundreds of tiny little ways. The people bitching about vista here are the same ones who bitched about XP, and before that, windows 2000.
In this case, you assume that just looking at an image cannot encourage someone to perform an act. But if this is true, the whole of advertising is a crock of shit, because seeing products advertised constantly is purely designed to encourage me to act on it, by purchasing the product. And that's with a passive system like advertising, not an active one like a first person game where you have choices of actions and some are rewarded.
How about a photo-realistic simulation game where you get to rape children? Is that ok? what about if it has a handy import feature that lets you scan a picture of a real child and import that? still ok? How about a tycoon game where you run the KKK, or maybe an interactive ethnic cleansing rpg set in serbia?
99.9999% have limits as to what they find acceptable. If you are really saying that banning ANY game is wrong, you just stated that you would support the sale of such games as I just described. I know I wouldn't. personally, I wouldn't like to see games like manhunt sold either. It's reasonable to argue exactly where the line should be drawn, but are you seriously suggesting we have *no* line?
Aha. we do have crime, but gun crime? not so much. here are the stats (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir _percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita)
Murders with firearms (per capita) by country
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people #32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
In other words, you are 27 times more likely to be shot in the US than in the UK. This might mean we suffer from more robberies? well true, but not by much:
Robberies (per capita) by country
#8 United Kingdom: 1.57433 per 1,000 people #11 United States: 1.38527 per 1,000 people
Given the relatively small difference in robbery rates, I'll choose that over the 27 times more likely to get my head blown off by someone. YMMV.
jesus what drivel. 99.9999% of people who pirate movies are not movie directros. explain to me how the fuck they plan on enriching our culture by torrenting the latest hollywood movie? This is such nonsense. if you truly want stagnation in our culture, try removing all incentives whatsoever from the people who invest millions in new movies and music. And do'nt trot out that infantile crap about "we had culture before copyright". yes we did, plays written by one guy, paintings done by one guy. Most of us LIKE big budget movies, TV shows and software. You will kill all that off if thieves like you insist on abolishing copyright.
you should read "the undercover economist" a book on all kinds of economic topics (a bit like freakonomics" where there is a chapter of the costs of health care (with stats) which backs up your suspicion 100%.
No they are not. Just because *some* people *claim* they would buy something if it was cheaper does not make the price wrong. This is elemetary economics. There is a supply and a demand curve and the product is priced where the amount of REVENUE (not sales) is highest, especially in a case where most costs are fixed ones. There are tons of people all over the world who think that movies are too cheap. I saw POTC 3 for £4 on a 'cheap night' (totally randomly, happened to be a monday). I would probably have paid up to £12 to see it. Of course, if you ask people how much they would have spent on something, then they always pretend that they wouldn't not have paid more than they have to, that is human nature. This goes back to my original point. If people know they can just steal something easily, they will try and claim to themselves they would not have paid anything at all.
But it's nonsense. Every single person on earth would put a different value (if you could really analyse it) on the value of seeing a new Hollywood movie. Only a minuscule percentage of them will pay exactly that, everyone else who goes to see it is getting a good deal. The studio does the sums, and sets the price accordingly. Business people do not pick a price out of a hat.
You say "clearly prices are too high", what you mean is "clearly prices are too low for some people, and too high for others, as is always going to be the case".
A COMMODITY Apples are a commodity. Star Trek is an example of a TV show. there is NO monopoly on producing Tv shows. One guy dreamed up star trek,. that means it's his, not yours. The contents of gene roddenberry's brain do not automatically belong to you, just as the inner thoughts of your brain belong to me. What is so difficult to understand about this? Are you seriously one of these people that is happy to sit and snooze next to JK rowling all day for 5 years, and on the day she puts down her pens and says she has finished, you think its cool to photocopy her book and change a few characters because "LOOK IT's AN EVIL MONOPOLY!" You have no right to take the fruits of other peoples hard work without compensating them. This is just morally wrong, and an incentive for everyone to sit on their ass and leech of other people. 99.9% of people see this. Only some slashdot posters trying to justify an illegal hard disk full of warez and copied music could vaguely think otherwise...
how is charging money for software extortion? photoshop isnt food or shelter, its an entirely optional luxury product with free alternatives. Hardly extortion.
Slashdot Mirror
oh dear.
There was no trivial way to copy and distribute content back then, so copying other peoples work was not a problem. perhaps you would like to go back hundreds of years to a system of artistic patronage, where rich people told creative people what to make? I'm sure you would love to see all TV and Movies government funded, but personally I'd rather live in a world where we can have Fox news AND Michael Moore, rather than some government official or billionaire determining how the working classes are entertained.
despite the multiple usage of exclamation arks in your post, I remain unclear of where I have stated that books are a recent invention. Please highlight this in my post.
I've never argued for 95 year terms for copyright. I would personally be happier with shorter terms. However, when people on slashdot start whining that "teh whole copyright system is teh eviL" and use this as a justification for taking other peoples work for free, those of us who *do* create original work, are naturally inclined to defend the current system, and its defenders (even if that's the RIAA) against those idiots who seem to think that not only does the world owe them a living, but that the efforts of everyone creative in the world should be provided to them at zero cost.
Its great when everyone else works hard to entertain you for nothing, however, its not sustainable. I'm happy to pay $30 for someone to make pizza and provide a nice restaurant for me to eat it in, and I'm happy to pay $20 to a band to buy a copy of music that maybe took them a year to write, after maybe 10 years learning to play. I really don't give a fuck if the restaurant owner or the musician in question becomes rich from doing so. Just because some of them do, does not entitle me to take the fruits of their labour for free. Amazingly, I consider what *I* get for my money, and whether or not it's worth it to *me*.
"scientifically justified". Explain that one to me. My best mate is a scientist, and amazingly, he is not bamboozled by the concept that if someone writes a really good book, he should pay money to purchase a copy of the book.
Let me know about these other wonderful ways of rewarding investment in intellectual property. There is the current system, there is communism (hardly a hotbed of great IP), there is patronage, and government subsidy. Which one are you keen on? and feel free to explain how it will still give people the diversity of entertainment we currently have, from independent bands right up to ten million dollar action movies (which regardless of your personal view, millions of people enjoy).
firstly I'm British, so nice try on the US-bashing but you were a few thousand miles out. And yes, people WILL create works of art *as a hobby*. I can assure you, as someone who has developed IP (PC games) as a hobby after a full day at work), and then full time, it is MUCH easier, better, more productive, and leads to far better products when people can devote all their time to it. Would FireFly have got written if the writer was working as a plumber during the day? maybe, but it sure as hell would not be as good as it is when he can devote his full day to it.( and iof course without the royalty related system, no budget would be available to film the series at all).
If someone writes the greatest book ever written, I think we would all rather they wrote some more, and dedicated their time to doing so. I'm glad Iain M banks makes lots of money from his books, and can write them full time, rather than having to scribble them on the bus after a days work as an estate agent. Capitalism, and the free market are the method by which we allocate people to the tasks they are best at. J K Rowling is a better writer than she would be a supermarket worker, and capitalism has put her in her correct role. If nobody is ever rewarded for creating art, then art will always remain an amateurish sideline. I don't want all the entertainment in the world to be part time efforts created at weekends.
As for people saying "I build houses / teach kids and dont get royalties", well wahey, that's your decision pal. There is no law preventing you from staying in that industry, or even working on that basis. 99% of roylaties are earned by people who give up a regular salary in return for speculating on the success of their own hard work. People who bitch about others royalties are often very pleased to get regular paychecks, company health insurance and pension contributions, all things that those who rely on royalties give up in order to speculate on their own abilities.
Estate agents work on a percentage, musicians work on royalties, and office workers work for a fixed salary. Some office workers gamble on getting a bonus, or share options. All these different systems are available, and its your decisions as to which path you choose. I decided to move from regular salaried job to a royalty-based career. That's my decision, and my gamble. if you think working for royalties is such an obvious gravy train, quit your job now and start a business. I assure you, there is nobody stopping you from doing so.
when a cover is recorded and sold, royalties are paid to the original songwriter. When a cover is merely performed live, as I understand it, the licence paid by the venue covers it. But make no mistake, there is legal acceptance of the fact that the original songwriter should be compensated when their song is performed for money by other people.
what bullshit. And how exactly are you going to encourage people to create new works? J K Rowling (Harry Potter) was an unemployed single mother when she wrote her first novel. In your world, she would have gone to work stacking food in a supermarket instead of wasting her time thinking she might make money as a writer.
Try to think it through before spouting knee-jerk anti-copyright nonsense.
And don't make us laugh by suggesting donationware (seen not to work or anything but a trivial scale) or state sponsorship. I don't want the government to approve all entertainment, and neither should you.
the less good ones get a flat fee (like me) the better ones can sometimes get points. depends who you are.
Some of them will be yes. I used to know a few session guys, I even did some work myself once (not for royalties though). A lot of session guys do a LOT of work, most of which never amounts to anything at all, then suddenly, that guy who you did some bass playing for turns out to have a mega platinum album, in which case (if you are lucky and got a points deal), you can be collecting checks well into retirement. In a way, this is just like people who buy premium bonds or lottery tickets. 99% of sessions will not make you rich, so I'm not surprised they want to defend their earnings from the 1% that pay off big time. The public never see it like this, they just see "person X made $Y for 30 minutes work", and discount both the ten years of learning the trade, plus the thirty years of doing poorly paid work for little or no return.
For every song, movie and TV show that earns an artist good money, they will have 5, 10 or 20 other shows where they earn absolutely nothing.
Sometimes, people complain about this saying "I don't get royalties in my job at all! its not fair", but this is always from people in jobs that earn far more *on average* than those highly speculative careers in entertainment. Some people like regular salaries and guaranteed returns. These people save their money in guaranteed bonds, and take jobs with salaries. other people like financial freedom, and are prepared to deal with the risk. they buy shares, and work on spec, in the hope of maybe striking it big. It's just two different outlooks, and there's no law saying you can't try both, but its only ever the people in safe jobs with pensions who complain vocally about how *some* people who took the other route appear to be better off.
I'm no fan of Cliff Richard, but you bet your ass that when he was spending his youth writing songs and recording, he was surrounded by friends in regular-paid jobs with a higher standard of living, and job security. They probably thought he was wasting his life back then. However, it was his risk to take, and he deserves the rewards.
having said all that, I disagree with the need to extend copyright. I think 50 years is fine in all cases, and it certainly shouldn't go much more than the lifetime of the author. I do, however, strongly defend the concept of copyright, and the right for entertainers and IP developers to profit from their efforts when they put their own money and ass on a risky line to make it happen.
Only the wheels will be welded on. None of this wheel nuts nonsense for apple :D
yes they did. although I suspect a lot of those session guys backed it too, yet the media only reports the names of the stars who are millionaires. So in fact, on the point of who supports copyright extension, David cameron is right, and you are falling for the medias shorthand.
agreed 100%. Nor will I ever put adverts in my own games. I haven't even tried the demo of BF2142, despite loving BF2, because its widely known to be full of ads.
The US is certainly losing my tourist money since they went all heavy on security. When people are on holiday, they really resent being fingerprinted, it seriously damages the mood. Since I stopped visiting the US, I've spent holidays in Canada, the Caribbean, south America and Scotland. And some of that money really should have gone to the US. I like your country, I got married there, I consider Las Vegas one of the best places I've ever visited, and my wife adores Yosemite. I just don't want to be treated like a terrorist on holiday.
I don't understand why the US tourist industry doesn't speak out against this nonsense? Are they not annoyed at having their industry targeted? or is it their business boosted by paranoid citizens refusing to leave the country for holidays?
trek? wrath of khan?
This is the US right? in the UK they tried to introduce them and suffered a serious consumer revolt. I haven't seen one that charges fees for years. In fact, the first bit of text on the screen of almost all UK ATMS is "you will not be charged for this" such was the backlash.
Same here. There is a ton of FUD about DRM. I haven't noticed any video or audio files or DVDs give me any problems whatsoever. Plus Vista has a nicer interface for playing DVDs and music than XP did.
I suspect people complaining about DRM features are just paranoid that their bit-torrented movie rips might not work. Not an issue for me.
It's not. Vista is way nicer to sue than XP. I'd guess 95% of people on here moaning about vista have never used it. I use it every day and I'm very happy with it. It's an improvement in hundreds of tiny little ways.
The people bitching about vista here are the same ones who bitched about XP, and before that, windows 2000.
In this case, you assume that just looking at an image cannot encourage someone to perform an act. But if this is true, the whole of advertising is a crock of shit, because seeing products advertised constantly is purely designed to encourage me to act on it, by purchasing the product. And that's with a passive system like advertising, not an active one like a first person game where you have choices of actions and some are rewarded.
and you stop where?
How about a photo-realistic simulation game where you get to rape children? Is that ok? what about if it has a handy import feature that lets you scan a picture of a real child and import that? still ok? How about a tycoon game where you run the KKK, or maybe an interactive ethnic cleansing rpg set in serbia?
99.9999% have limits as to what they find acceptable. If you are really saying that banning ANY game is wrong, you just stated that you would support the sale of such games as I just described. I know I wouldn't. personally, I wouldn't like to see games like manhunt sold either. It's reasonable to argue exactly where the line should be drawn, but are you seriously suggesting we have *no* line?
Aha. we do have crime, but gun crime? not so much. here are the stats (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir _percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita)
Murders with firearms (per capita) by country
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 people
In other words, you are 27 times more likely to be shot in the US than in the UK. This might mean we suffer from more robberies? well true, but not by much:
Robberies (per capita) by country
#8 United Kingdom: 1.57433 per 1,000 people
#11 United States: 1.38527 per 1,000 people
Given the relatively small difference in robbery rates, I'll choose that over the 27 times more likely to get my head blown off by someone.
YMMV.
I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Seriously. agreed 100%.
jesus what drivel. 99.9999% of people who pirate movies are not movie directros. explain to me how the fuck they plan on enriching our culture by torrenting the latest hollywood movie? This is such nonsense. if you truly want stagnation in our culture, try removing all incentives whatsoever from the people who invest millions in new movies and music.
And do'nt trot out that infantile crap about "we had culture before copyright". yes we did, plays written by one guy, paintings done by one guy. Most of us LIKE big budget movies, TV shows and software. You will kill all that off if thieves like you insist on abolishing copyright.
you should read "the undercover economist" a book on all kinds of economic topics (a bit like freakonomics" where there is a chapter of the costs of health care (with stats) which backs up your suspicion 100%.
"Clearly- prices are too high."
No they are not.
Just because *some* people *claim* they would buy something if it was cheaper does not make the price wrong. This is elemetary economics. There is a supply and a demand curve and the product is priced where the amount of REVENUE (not sales) is highest, especially in a case where most costs are fixed ones.
There are tons of people all over the world who think that movies are too cheap. I saw POTC 3 for £4 on a 'cheap night' (totally randomly, happened to be a monday). I would probably have paid up to £12 to see it.
Of course, if you ask people how much they would have spent on something, then they always pretend that they wouldn't not have paid more than they have to, that is human nature. This goes back to my original point. If people know they can just steal something easily, they will try and claim to themselves they would not have paid anything at all.
But it's nonsense. Every single person on earth would put a different value (if you could really analyse it) on the value of seeing a new Hollywood movie. Only a minuscule percentage of them will pay exactly that, everyone else who goes to see it is getting a good deal. The studio does the sums, and sets the price accordingly. Business people do not pick a price out of a hat.
You say "clearly prices are too high", what you mean is "clearly prices are too low for some people, and too high for others, as is always going to be the case".
A COMMODITY
Apples are a commodity.
Star Trek is an example of a TV show. there is NO monopoly on producing Tv shows. One guy dreamed up star trek,. that means it's his, not yours. The contents of gene roddenberry's brain do not automatically belong to you, just as the inner thoughts of your brain belong to me.
What is so difficult to understand about this?
Are you seriously one of these people that is happy to sit and snooze next to JK rowling all day for 5 years, and on the day she puts down her pens and says she has finished, you think its cool to photocopy her book and change a few characters because "LOOK IT's AN EVIL MONOPOLY!"
You have no right to take the fruits of other peoples hard work without compensating them. This is just morally wrong, and an incentive for everyone to sit on their ass and leech of other people.
99.9% of people see this. Only some slashdot posters trying to justify an illegal hard disk full of warez and copied music could vaguely think otherwise...
how is charging money for software extortion? photoshop isnt food or shelter, its an entirely optional luxury product with free alternatives. Hardly extortion.