he didnt casually dismiss anything, but linked to a site which quotes peer reviewed science vs the ramblings of a sci-fi author. Given a choice, I'll believe the peer reviewed science thanks.
Wow, I should belive your attack on greenpeace "because Rush Limbaugh said so". Nice impartial stuff there. Without Greenpeace the environmental issues would still be pushed to one side, we wouldnt have anywhere near the level of public awareness of climate change, of the risks to health of certain toxins, of the widespread use of dubious additives in food etc etc. I'm sure both yourself and Rush Limbaugh would prefer that there were no green pressure groups so that companies could carry on doing what the hell they wanted without any media scrutiny at all. I for one am glad that there are people who are prepared to call companies to account for the impact that their actions have on the environment.
when people are slagging off digital content providers, they always trot out britney spears or some other mass-market 'low-brow' example of culture, in an attempt to make their point. Personally, I would miss the works of the sci fi writer Iain M Banks, further episodes of ER, the West Wing, the films of Ang Lee, and the music of Dream Theater. These are my personal likes, and every one of them has their work protected by intellectual property law. So when you consigned all the crap to the waste bin, you consigned everyone elses favorite books, films, tv and music to the bin too. Nice work.
(im sure some of the above could knock up some part-time work when they got home from their day jobs, but I'd rather people with this talent had proper time and budget. Its not like it kills me to spend the odd $30 on entertainment).
The inconvenience of voting is a trivial issue, its the way the votes are counted that puts people off.
First past The Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_sys tem) is our deeply flawed and useless voting system. In a hypothetical seat with 100 voters, you want to put the effort in to win 51 of them. winning 49 wastes all your effort, and any support beyond 51 is a waste as well. If you think you won't win 51 of those voters, you can basically treat them as cannon fodder for policies that let you win those 51 elsewhere. Thats why our system favours the labour party (strong support in working class areas, zero support in rural, wealthy areas) and the tories (the opposite), and totally screws the third party (lib dem). If your party comes second in every single constituency you get zero MPs, despite the fact that you could be a hugely popular party. The lib dems (3rd party) in the UK are woefully under represented in parliament. I've voted all my life and every vote was a waste of time, as I have always lived in a safe Tory Seat. Until we have some form of proportional representation, the UK elections will never have anything more than a vague connection with the opinions of the majority of voters, and thats ignoring entirely the proportion who don't vote. When we 'bought democracy to Iraq' we gave them PR, but we still don't have it in the UK. By any rational measurement, the UK is not a Democracy at all.
I don't need a reading list on the topic of how markets can and cannot work, I did a degree in Economics thanks:D You talk about free riders, and how every market has them. I agree, and it's true that content producers naturally assume the worst when it comes to the effects of free riding. However, what is new is the increible ease with which people can free ride. People on/. sometimes moan that the record companies used to complain about home taping killing music, yet it never did. That's true, but the costs to the free rider of benefiting from home taping (pestering a fiend) have dropped to zero now (just launch emule and click download).
Also, be aware of your comparisons, I would indeed be upset if someone charged me to breathe, as I will die within 30 seconds without doing so,. I can, however go my whole life without seeing a hollywood movie. Don't try and compare consumption of luxury goods with essentials physical needs.
I'm not an evil capitalist who supports everything the RIAA do, far from it. I think that copyright is way too powerful, and should certainly expire within 20 years in all cases, and with some areas, probably much sooner. I would like to see a lot more people releasing their copyrights voluntarily too. I released the source to two of my old games years ago, and certainly won't be keeping them closed source for the rest of my life, although indie games tend to have much longer shelf lives than mainstream ones.
One of my major worries about the extent of piracy on the market, is not so much the fear that all new content will disappear entirely (some will, we have seen 2 big players abandon pc gaming already), but that the free riders become invisible. I basically have two popular games (democracy and kudos) and because I need the cash, I'm probably going to base my next game slightly on the relative sales figures of those 2. It really doesn't matter if x thousand pirates really enjoyed game X, I don't know about it, and didn't get rewarded for it, so there will be no game X 2. It's ultimately in the consumers interest to pay for the entertainment they enjoy, because if they do not do so, they will only get more entertainment of the kind other people enjoy. I notice that slashdot readers love Firefly, but that the show was canned. Cue lots of complaining... but if everyone who raved about the show had actually bought it instead of getting it off bit torrent it would still be going. Purchasing entertainment is the best way for the market to receive accurate information on what people want. I recently bought Civ4. I'm sure I could have torrented it, but I'm happy for firaxis to have my money, and I hope they will continue making similar games.
Not to mention software. I could try selling tickets for people to watch me coding, but I would not get very far. The only *problem* here is theft. people take stuff that they have not paid for. If it were not for leeches and pirates, people would not have to waste time and effort working on ever stricter DRM. It's like motorists complaining about speed cameras, the solution is just to stick to the speed limit.
People who advocate the 'free distribution' of anything stored in electronic form, should try running a movie company, start a band, or develop software for a living, to see the other side of the argument. There is NOTHING that prevents anyone reading this from creating digital content, and giving it away free, if they really want to.
People who run businesses creating digital content do not try and force thsoe who make freeware to charge. people who advocate freeware should not try and force their 'business model' on those who prefer to charge. Most of us have bills to pay and families to feed, and you can't feed people with myspace kudos or slashdot mod points.
I'd argue the capitalist system is superior to the "everyone should give away theuir content for free" idea, simply because people are forced to allocate praise in a very accureate way, through division of their disposable income. I can post on a forum that band X and Y are great, at no cost, but if they are both selling their album, the one who makes the best album gets my cash (presuming limited funds). Thats the way capitalism sends signals to the market to determine what should be produced. Scrapping this signaling system (by removing money from the equation) totally short circuits the whole system of encouraging the market to produce what is best. We NEED a system that says "more half life, less daikatana" but if the producers have no way of knowing which is best, we are unlikely to get the best results.
Also, the thing about scracity strikes me as odd. people suddenly trot out this thing about the abolition of scarcity as some sudden argument that means everything should be free, amnd its an evil cartel that will terrorize us. Not true. I have a print of a painting on my wall. Its limited to about 300 I think, and I lvoe it. I have to save up for months to buy it, and it was worth it. It doesn't matter to me that the technology exists to make an unlimited number, the artist in question decided to frame his business around artifical scarcity, and that's up to them. It was their painting, and the way they frame their business model was their decision. If you craete something, it's yours, and you can do what you want with it. At least, you can in a free society.
in what way? I just watched a DVD on the media center within vista and its fantastic. No problem at all. I guess where I have done somethign weird is I actually BOUGHT the DVD and played a legit copy, rather than just leeching it off bit torrent. Its amazing how painless everything is when you do that.
I have 2 machines, a vista one and an XP one (plus an XP laptop). The Vista PC is newer, so i can't do an apples and apples comparison, but still, my impression is that Vista feels nicer, slicker, more responsive and faster than XP. Like most versions of windows, it's hard to really put my finger on a single 'killer app' that makes Vista better, but as a user, the overalle xperience just feels more polished. I *had* to get a vista machine, to do compatility tests for my games, but I certainly don't regret doing so. I'd be suprised if many end users who get an O/S with a new PC, who aren't uber geeks will go out of their way to ask for the earlier operating system, especially as any new machine will run vista fine.
I know lots of people have a beef with various aspects of Vista, but they don't bother me. I don't watch downloaded movies on my PC, I use it for gaming and surfing and developing, so the DRM that may be in it doesn't bother me personally. Apart from anything, Vista is more likely to be safer, as XP will now be ignroed in terms of patching exploits.
Vista will win in the long term. it might be longer than the short-termists who write magazine articles are used to, but in 3-4 years from now, it will seem funny to have written off vista. Microsoft aren't as strong as they used to be, Google has seen to that, and I doubt they would attempt to do an even more bloated expensive O/S after vista, but I also doubt there will be any long term problems in its takeup.
indeed. If it wasn't for the spectrum, or more notably, the ZX81, I wouldnt have an interest in programming at all, and right now, I'd be working for someone else doing a really tedious job. Hurrah for sinclair!
"3) Not much of a point there. The US used them repetitively as weapons of war in 1945. A number of countries have detonated two or more nuclear weapons since then."
in their own countries. or on an island they at least claim to own (French). Nobody has dropped a nuke on another country apart from the US. I'm not saying they were wrong, but you can't just gloss over the fact that the USA nuked large civilian areas twice, and other countries have basically had test explosions in deserts. It could be argued that instead of hiroshima, the US could have nuked a deserted island and sent video of it to the japanese. I reckon they would have got the message.
you are kidding right? As if I need another reason not to fly these days. It's this kind of bullshit that makes mne glad to have booked a sleeper overnight train for my next holiday. It's like the air travel industry *wants* to commit suicide.
its still up to the consumer what he eats. You might think I'm a dumb bastard if I decide to pass on foods that have been cloned. I might think that a hindu is a dumb bastard for skipping some food that has pork in. A vegetarian might think we are both dumb bastards for still eating meat etc etc. Its not about forcing your opinion on whats good food on other people, its about letting people know what they are buying, and making their own decisions.
damn good points. I know sod all about real life combat, having never even held a real gun, but here is my uninformed ramblings as someone who just reads slashdot and plays call of duty a lot...
I agree that the eyepiece thing must be useless. Its like covering the RHS of the screen with a minimap. Fuck that! Heres what I would imagine would be better uses of the money:
1) Arabic lessons, language and local customs. Ditto the language of any nation theres a good chance of serving in. Understanding the locals is always good.
2) Lighter weight guns, ammo, radios.... everything.
3) More reliable everything. Twice the money on a gun thats less likely to jam or screw up sounds a good investment. Making stuff that can work fine even after its been in a sandstorm, then dropped in a swamp, then generally neglected and smashed about.
4) The silly stuff, like more comfortable boots, im talking ultra-comfortable megaboots that you could wear forever and still love. Uniforms that keep you cool / warm as appropriate. Really good sunglasses, 100% emphasis on the soldier being as comfortable with his kit as possible.
Once all that is sorted, if there is *still* spare cash, then maybe spend some on the high tech stuff. Given the amount of success the 'insurgents' seem to have, without any of the high etch stuff, I'm suggesting tech isn't the defining factor in winning modern battles.
Of course, I know absolutely fuck all about the topic, and if I was a congressmen/senator my #1 job would be to go ask a dozen randomly selected (not pre-briefed) soldiers out in iraq, in total confidence, to tell me exactly what would make their job easier.
what is this mionopoly bullshit you are talking about. I started my own software company, i make my own games and sell them over the web. i belong to NO trade body and do not have my business restricted by anyone. This fantasy MAFIAAAAA bullshit exists only in the minds of slashdot readers who use it to justify copyright theft. I sell games in a competitive market, I assure you the market exists, and its working. I'm sure I'd notice if the software business was communism.
BTW, let me know the next time a new catwalk dress took 200 people 5 years to design.
you prefer prince to britney. some prefer britney to prince. I didnt realise you were the universally appointed arbiter of what is good music. I bow before you.
I'm aware of the fact that people paid money to see his plays. If they had been able to bittorrent them and not go to the globe, then would he have written any more? Even shakespeare had to eat.
So you think that if I'm not reselling it, I should be able to take whatever I want, from anyone, for free? You just put every software, movie, pharmaceutical and music company out of business. prepare to enter a new dark ages.
As I said, this is communism. To argue for such a system is to say you are unhappy with capitalism, and would prefer a communist system instead. personally, I doubt you get as efective a supply of quality goods and services under communism as you do under capitalism. After all, if I only get the same reward for making a crappy film or an awesome film, am I really going to working that hard? and who is going to decide what movies should have 50 million spent on them? the government? a poll of people on teh interweb? seriously?
capitalism sucks, but all the alternatives suck way more. Think this stuff through before you try and unravel the old system of payment in return for goods or services.
"Again you've got it backwards. What you're advocating is that just because someone spent 2 years writing a book they should be protected by law so that they can live off that 2 years of work forever. I've spent the last 30 years working. I think they should pass a law that I should keep getting payed for everything I've produced in those 30 years so I don't have to continue working."
nope, totally wrong.
when you write a book for 2 years you get paid NOTHING, and the BIG chance is you wont sell any and still earn nothing. its a HUGE risk. Did *you* get paid for those 30 years? I suspect you did. It's a different approach to business. Some people risk their labour in the hope of a good return one day, most people risk sod all and take a regular check. Most people who take risky approach earn less than people like you, but that never stops people bitching about the 1% of them that they read about in celebrity magazines.
newsflash : not every singer is as rich as elton john. not every filmmaker is george lucas. Many risk everything, and lsoe everything, while you are in your comfortable day job with a regular monthly wage.
"No, what you're advocating is that a specific group have their specific industry artificially protected by laws so they can continue using outdated business models to make money"
nope, im suggesting we enforce the law. If your employer stopped paying you, youd want them sued right? your just another specific group (waged employees) who would be the very first to run screaming to the law if you didn't get paid.
By the way, creative works are not a 'closed shop'. If you think its such an easy life creating stuff and selling it, why have you spent 30 years doing the opposite?
"And maybe this means a lot of artists and musicians will be out of work, and that's sad, but if they can't convince their audiences that they deserve to be supported for their talent, then they're not very good and deserve to die off."
im glad this didnt happen beore shakespeare, otherwise we would indeed be very sad. It sounds like you dont want the best writers and the best movie directros of software engineers to carry on doing their work, you just want the ones who are best at promoting their work in lieu of actual sales? So if I write really shitty books, but Im a hilarious guy when you come along to hear me read excerpts from them (the 'performance'), then you think I should be better rewarded by the market than someone who is a very clumsy, shy introvert who happens to write kick-ass novels. I disagree. We already have a system that decides what entertainment products are the best, called the free market. If you write something excellent, millions buy it, and you get to do it full time, with a bigger budget / more time in future. The system has worked pretty well, its a pity that a bunch of kids want to pull the whole system down rather than shell out a few dollars for entirely optional luxury goods like books and Cds now and then.
Slashdot Mirror
he didnt casually dismiss anything, but linked to a site which quotes peer reviewed science vs the ramblings of a sci-fi author. Given a choice, I'll believe the peer reviewed science thanks.
Wow, I should belive your attack on greenpeace "because Rush Limbaugh said so". Nice impartial stuff there. Without Greenpeace the environmental issues would still be pushed to one side, we wouldnt have anywhere near the level of public awareness of climate change, of the risks to health of certain toxins, of the widespread use of dubious additives in food etc etc.
I'm sure both yourself and Rush Limbaugh would prefer that there were no green pressure groups so that companies could carry on doing what the hell they wanted without any media scrutiny at all. I for one am glad that there are people who are prepared to call companies to account for the impact that their actions have on the environment.
when people are slagging off digital content providers, they always trot out britney spears or some other mass-market 'low-brow' example of culture, in an attempt to make their point.
Personally, I would miss the works of the sci fi writer Iain M Banks, further episodes of ER, the West Wing, the films of Ang Lee, and the music of Dream Theater. These are my personal likes, and every one of them has their work protected by intellectual property law.
So when you consigned all the crap to the waste bin, you consigned everyone elses favorite books, films, tv and music to the bin too. Nice work.
(im sure some of the above could knock up some part-time work when they got home from their day jobs, but I'd rather people with this talent had proper time and budget. Its not like it kills me to spend the odd $30 on entertainment).
The inconvenience of voting is a trivial issue, its the way the votes are counted that puts people off.
s tem) is our deeply flawed and useless voting system. In a hypothetical seat with 100 voters, you want to put the effort in to win 51 of them. winning 49 wastes all your effort, and any support beyond 51 is a waste as well. If you think you won't win 51 of those voters, you can basically treat them as cannon fodder for policies that let you win those 51 elsewhere.
First past The Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_sy
Thats why our system favours the labour party (strong support in working class areas, zero support in rural, wealthy areas) and the tories (the opposite), and totally screws the third party (lib dem). If your party comes second in every single constituency you get zero MPs, despite the fact that you could be a hugely popular party. The lib dems (3rd party) in the UK are woefully under represented in parliament.
I've voted all my life and every vote was a waste of time, as I have always lived in a safe Tory Seat.
Until we have some form of proportional representation, the UK elections will never have anything more than a vague connection with the opinions of the majority of voters, and thats ignoring entirely the proportion who don't vote.
When we 'bought democracy to Iraq' we gave them PR, but we still don't have it in the UK. By any rational measurement, the UK is not a Democracy at all.
I don't need a reading list on the topic of how markets can and cannot work, I did a degree in Economics thanks :D /. sometimes moan that the record companies used to complain about home taping killing music, yet it never did. That's true, but the costs to the free rider of benefiting from home taping (pestering a fiend) have dropped to zero now (just launch emule and click download).
You talk about free riders, and how every market has them. I agree, and it's true that content producers naturally assume the worst when it comes to the effects of free riding. However, what is new is the increible ease with which people can free ride. People on
Also, be aware of your comparisons, I would indeed be upset if someone charged me to breathe, as I will die within 30 seconds without doing so,. I can, however go my whole life without seeing a hollywood movie. Don't try and compare consumption of luxury goods with essentials physical needs.
I'm not an evil capitalist who supports everything the RIAA do, far from it. I think that copyright is way too powerful, and should certainly expire within 20 years in all cases, and with some areas, probably much sooner. I would like to see a lot more people releasing their copyrights voluntarily too. I released the source to two of my old games years ago, and certainly won't be keeping them closed source for the rest of my life, although indie games tend to have much longer shelf lives than mainstream ones.
One of my major worries about the extent of piracy on the market, is not so much the fear that all new content will disappear entirely (some will, we have seen 2 big players abandon pc gaming already), but that the free riders become invisible. I basically have two popular games (democracy and kudos) and because I need the cash, I'm probably going to base my next game slightly on the relative sales figures of those 2. It really doesn't matter if x thousand pirates really enjoyed game X, I don't know about it, and didn't get rewarded for it, so there will be no game X 2. It's ultimately in the consumers interest to pay for the entertainment they enjoy, because if they do not do so, they will only get more entertainment of the kind other people enjoy. I notice that slashdot readers love Firefly, but that the show was canned. Cue lots of complaining... but if everyone who raved about the show had actually bought it instead of getting it off bit torrent it would still be going.
Purchasing entertainment is the best way for the market to receive accurate information on what people want. I recently bought Civ4. I'm sure I could have torrented it, but I'm happy for firaxis to have my money, and I hope they will continue making similar games.
well it sounds like nothings a problem if you own the DVDs you want to watch, so it sounds like it works perfectly.
Not to mention software. I could try selling tickets for people to watch me coding, but I would not get very far. The only *problem* here is theft. people take stuff that they have not paid for. If it were not for leeches and pirates, people would not have to waste time and effort working on ever stricter DRM. It's like motorists complaining about speed cameras, the solution is just to stick to the speed limit.
People who advocate the 'free distribution' of anything stored in electronic form, should try running a movie company, start a band, or develop software for a living, to see the other side of the argument. There is NOTHING that prevents anyone reading this from creating digital content, and giving it away free, if they really want to.
People who run businesses creating digital content do not try and force thsoe who make freeware to charge. people who advocate freeware should not try and force their 'business model' on those who prefer to charge. Most of us have bills to pay and families to feed, and you can't feed people with myspace kudos or slashdot mod points.
I'd argue the capitalist system is superior to the "everyone should give away theuir content for free" idea, simply because people are forced to allocate praise in a very accureate way, through division of their disposable income. I can post on a forum that band X and Y are great, at no cost, but if they are both selling their album, the one who makes the best album gets my cash (presuming limited funds). Thats the way capitalism sends signals to the market to determine what should be produced. Scrapping this signaling system (by removing money from the equation) totally short circuits the whole system of encouraging the market to produce what is best. We NEED a system that says "more half life, less daikatana" but if the producers have no way of knowing which is best, we are unlikely to get the best results.
Also, the thing about scracity strikes me as odd. people suddenly trot out this thing about the abolition of scarcity as some sudden argument that means everything should be free, amnd its an evil cartel that will terrorize us. Not true. I have a print of a painting on my wall. Its limited to about 300 I think, and I lvoe it. I have to save up for months to buy it, and it was worth it. It doesn't matter to me that the technology exists to make an unlimited number, the artist in question decided to frame his business around artifical scarcity, and that's up to them. It was their painting, and the way they frame their business model was their decision. If you craete something, it's yours, and you can do what you want with it. At least, you can in a free society.
i watch DVds flawlessly. what type of video file is causing you problems?
in what way? I just watched a DVD on the media center within vista and its fantastic. No problem at all. I guess where I have done somethign weird is I actually BOUGHT the DVD and played a legit copy, rather than just leeching it off bit torrent. Its amazing how painless everything is when you do that.
hahaha. do you have a source for this 90% figure, or did you just make it up?
because it's better than XP.
I have 2 machines, a vista one and an XP one (plus an XP laptop). The Vista PC is newer, so i can't do an apples and apples comparison, but still, my impression is that Vista feels nicer, slicker, more responsive and faster than XP.
Like most versions of windows, it's hard to really put my finger on a single 'killer app' that makes Vista better, but as a user, the overalle xperience just feels more polished.
I *had* to get a vista machine, to do compatility tests for my games, but I certainly don't regret doing so. I'd be suprised if many end users who get an O/S with a new PC, who aren't uber geeks will go out of their way to ask for the earlier operating system, especially as any new machine will run vista fine.
I know lots of people have a beef with various aspects of Vista, but they don't bother me. I don't watch downloaded movies on my PC, I use it for gaming and surfing and developing, so the DRM that may be in it doesn't bother me personally.
Apart from anything, Vista is more likely to be safer, as XP will now be ignroed in terms of patching exploits.
Vista will win in the long term. it might be longer than the short-termists who write magazine articles are used to, but in 3-4 years from now, it will seem funny to have written off vista.
Microsoft aren't as strong as they used to be, Google has seen to that, and I doubt they would attempt to do an even more bloated expensive O/S after vista, but I also doubt there will be any long term problems in its takeup.
indeed. If it wasn't for the spectrum, or more notably, the ZX81, I wouldnt have an interest in programming at all, and right now, I'd be working for someone else doing a really tedious job.
Hurrah for sinclair!
fine, nuke 2 islands. but what was the neccesity of incinerating X thousand foreign citizens?
"3) Not much of a point there. The US used them repetitively as weapons of war in 1945. A number of countries have detonated two or more nuclear weapons since then."
in their own countries. or on an island they at least claim to own (French). Nobody has dropped a nuke on another country apart from the US. I'm not saying they were wrong, but you can't just gloss over the fact that the USA nuked large civilian areas twice, and other countries have basically had test explosions in deserts.
It could be argued that instead of hiroshima, the US could have nuked a deserted island and sent video of it to the japanese. I reckon they would have got the message.
you are kidding right? As if I need another reason not to fly these days. It's this kind of bullshit that makes mne glad to have booked a sleeper overnight train for my next holiday. It's like the air travel industry *wants* to commit suicide.
its still up to the consumer what he eats. You might think I'm a dumb bastard if I decide to pass on foods that have been cloned. I might think that a hindu is a dumb bastard for skipping some food that has pork in. A vegetarian might think we are both dumb bastards for still eating meat etc etc.
Its not about forcing your opinion on whats good food on other people, its about letting people know what they are buying, and making their own decisions.
damn good points. I know sod all about real life combat, having never even held a real gun, but here is my uninformed ramblings as someone who just reads slashdot and plays call of duty a lot...
I agree that the eyepiece thing must be useless. Its like covering the RHS of the screen with a minimap. Fuck that!
Heres what I would imagine would be better uses of the money:
1) Arabic lessons, language and local customs. Ditto the language of any nation theres a good chance of serving in. Understanding the locals is always good.
2) Lighter weight guns, ammo, radios.... everything.
3) More reliable everything. Twice the money on a gun thats less likely to jam or screw up sounds a good investment. Making stuff that can work fine even after its been in a sandstorm, then dropped in a swamp, then generally neglected and smashed about.
4) The silly stuff, like more comfortable boots, im talking ultra-comfortable megaboots that you could wear forever and still love. Uniforms that keep you cool / warm as appropriate. Really good sunglasses, 100% emphasis on the soldier being as comfortable with his kit as possible.
Once all that is sorted, if there is *still* spare cash, then maybe spend some on the high tech stuff. Given the amount of success the 'insurgents' seem to have, without any of the high etch stuff, I'm suggesting tech isn't the defining factor in winning modern battles.
Of course, I know absolutely fuck all about the topic, and if I was a congressmen/senator my #1 job would be to go ask a dozen randomly selected (not pre-briefed) soldiers out in iraq, in total confidence, to tell me exactly what would make their job easier.
clearly you do not have a grasp of the economic term 'monopoly'.
You are equating a monopoly with capitalism again.
what is this mionopoly bullshit you are talking about. I started my own software company, i make my own games and sell them over the web. i belong to NO trade body and do not have my business restricted by anyone. This fantasy MAFIAAAAA bullshit exists only in the minds of slashdot readers who use it to justify copyright theft.
I sell games in a competitive market, I assure you the market exists, and its working. I'm sure I'd notice if the software business was communism.
BTW, let me know the next time a new catwalk dress took 200 people 5 years to design.
"Did *you* get paid for those 30 years?"
just to extract from all the waffle, your answer was yes then?
I thought so.
you prefer prince to britney. some prefer britney to prince. I didnt realise you were the universally appointed arbiter of what is good music.
I bow before you.
I'm aware of the fact that people paid money to see his plays. If they had been able to bittorrent them and not go to the globe, then would he have written any more? Even shakespeare had to eat.
So you think that if I'm not reselling it, I should be able to take whatever I want, from anyone, for free? You just put every software, movie, pharmaceutical and music company out of business. prepare to enter a new dark ages.
As I said, this is communism. To argue for such a system is to say you are unhappy with capitalism, and would prefer a communist system instead. personally, I doubt you get as efective a supply of quality goods and services under communism as you do under capitalism. After all, if I only get the same reward for making a crappy film or an awesome film, am I really going to working that hard? and who is going to decide what movies should have 50 million spent on them? the government? a poll of people on teh interweb? seriously?
capitalism sucks, but all the alternatives suck way more. Think this stuff through before you try and unravel the old system of payment in return for goods or services.
"Again you've got it backwards. What you're advocating is that just because someone spent 2 years writing a book they should be protected by law so that they can live off that 2 years of work forever. I've spent the last 30 years working. I think they should pass a law that I should keep getting payed for everything I've produced in those 30 years so I don't have to continue working."
nope, totally wrong.
when you write a book for 2 years you get paid NOTHING, and the BIG chance is you wont sell any and still earn nothing. its a HUGE risk. Did *you* get paid for those 30 years? I suspect you did. It's a different approach to business. Some people risk their labour in the hope of a good return one day, most people risk sod all and take a regular check. Most people who take risky approach earn less than people like you, but that never stops people bitching about the 1% of them that they read about in celebrity magazines.
newsflash : not every singer is as rich as elton john. not every filmmaker is george lucas. Many risk everything, and lsoe everything, while you are in your comfortable day job with a regular monthly wage.
"No, what you're advocating is that a specific group have their specific industry artificially protected by laws so they can continue using outdated business models to make money"
nope, im suggesting we enforce the law. If your employer stopped paying you, youd want them sued right? your just another specific group (waged employees) who would be the very first to run screaming to the law if you didn't get paid.
By the way, creative works are not a 'closed shop'. If you think its such an easy life creating stuff and selling it, why have you spent 30 years doing the opposite?
"And maybe this means a lot of artists and musicians will be out of work, and that's sad, but if they can't convince their audiences that they deserve to be supported for their talent, then they're not very good and deserve to die off."
im glad this didnt happen beore shakespeare, otherwise we would indeed be very sad. It sounds like you dont want the best writers and the best movie directros of software engineers to carry on doing their work, you just want the ones who are best at promoting their work in lieu of actual sales?
So if I write really shitty books, but Im a hilarious guy when you come along to hear me read excerpts from them (the 'performance'), then you think I should be better rewarded by the market than someone who is a very clumsy, shy introvert who happens to write kick-ass novels.
I disagree.
We already have a system that decides what entertainment products are the best, called the free market. If you write something excellent, millions buy it, and you get to do it full time, with a bigger budget / more time in future.
The system has worked pretty well, its a pity that a bunch of kids want to pull the whole system down rather than shell out a few dollars for entirely optional luxury goods like books and Cds now and then.