what waste of scarce resources? most solutions to man made climate change require us to become more efficient in our resource usage. surely "Collosal waste of scarce resources" means driving a hummer to walmart to do grocery shopping?
There's a difference between the global warming debate and other scientific debates, and that's timescale. We can argue for the next thousand years if evolution or creationists are right, it really doesn't matter apart from proving a point. We can argue for ten million years about whether or not string theory is right, or how black holes are formed, or how gravity really works etc etc etc.
The problem with the man made climate change theory is that it predicts a catastrophic outcome that *can be avoided or mitigated heavily* in the *SHORT* term. The climate change scientists *might* be wrong. But I don't want to take the risk. The thought of coming over all smug in 20 years because I was right and climate change *is* caused by us, will be little comfort if my house is under water at that point.
It might be academically a bit awkward, but we have actually run out of time for further debate on this one. Some may say we ran out of time 20 years ago. This may make debating societies angry, but I suspect we are going to have to just deal with that.
"they should be grateful that i like them, because i would possibly go to a concert to see them"
maybe your local shop should be grateful you steal their apples. one day, you might buy a banana right?
agreed, that in that case the store loses an apple, but the main point is that it's up to the person providing content to determine how best to market it, not you. You have no rights over other peoples hard work. If they are charging too much (in YOUR opinion) that's their decision, you have no right to over-rule them. Add top this the fact that humans are VERY good at kidding ourselves and self-justifying, and saying "i wouldnt have bought it" is easy to say once we have a stolen copy.
I agree with you 100%. Many of the stunts pulled by the RIAA, MPAA etc are totally evil. Whoever at sony thought that putting a rootkit on peoples PCs was a good idea needs shooting. I'd like to see copyright expire MUCH quicker than it currently does, and I totally agree with you on format shifting (some of my games have a mac version, and despite the port being done by a 3rd party, we have a deal in place to allow our customers to format shift in either direction). You are right about the growth of the small independents (in all industries) being a positive force in all this mess. However, what depresses me is that I've seen no evidence at all that people who torrent the big evil megacorp products also treat the little guy better. In fact, you will find software done by 1-2 man companies torrented alongside the likes of Halo. If people were torrenting content to show how they dislike the vile cartel style system, they should be supporting people outside that system. Unfortunately, they don't seem to do so, which makes me think that most people torrenting content have no real gripe or agenda, they just want stuff for free, regardles who made it or what their policy is towards customers:(
you didn't even do any research before you slung that last insult. In fact my first game (star Miner / asteroid miner) has its source code freely available, its linked to on a number of gamedev sites. I made it available about 3 years ago, way before your ten year deadline. In fact, a quick google found this: http://www.amazon.com/Game-Programming-Beginners-G uide-CD-ROM/dp/1568811934 a book that has the games source code in it. (i didnt even know about the book till just now). I also did it with Rocky Racers, another old game of mine, and fully intend to do it with my other games in a few years. I'm opposed to rootkits and other silly tactics, in favour of a right to backup, and a right to format shift.Anyone who buys a mac copy of my games can request a free pc copy, and vice versa (where available). Not everyone who is opposed to people illegally torrenting stuff is automatically an evil MPAA shill. Some of us just care about being paid when we create something popular.
99%? don't quote figures if your pulling them out of your ass. Many many years ago I was in a band that got offered a record deal. yes, the deals suck, but they don't suck to the extent of 1% going to the artists. pretending that they only get 1% might make you feel better, but it's bullshit.
I think you will find that the artists aren't getting some token sum from the RIAA. they get what was in the contract. Many bands have smart accountants (like the rolling stones) who 100% ensure they get every penny they are entitled to.
Sorry if that makes it harder for you to feel justified in taking the music for free.
Firstly I'm not American. secondly I am in total disagreement with you. I make games for a living, and its fucking hard work. You seem to think you were born with some basic right to take the fruit of my labour without compensation. The way I see it that makes you one of the following:
1) a communist 2) a leecher 3) an idiot.
Choose.
Or explain why you have the RIGHT to take my hard work for free? Then explain my incentive to do any further work if that's true? note that this generalises to everyone on planet earth that makes any content at all that can be encoded digitally.
"The **AA are subhumans (more or less) who are trying to create a supply and demand situation where the demand is greater than the supply by choking off all supplies but their own"
Oh dear. you REALLY think that statement is true? firstly, they are not 'subhuman'. secondly, there is nothing preventing you going home right now, writing some music or making an amateur movie, and releasing it free on the web. The fact that you don't bother, but would rather make illegal copies of other peoples work instead, speaks volumes about the issue. They are not restricting the supply of entertainment. not even vaguely.
If you really gave a damn about the issue, you would avoid *evil RIAA* content entirely and stick to free content, or purchase your content directly from the content creators. Either way, downloading hollywood movies from isohunt makes their point, not yours.
well said. The pseudo intellectual gibberish spouted on slashdot about how 'information should be free' is always peddled by those who don't generate that information or content in the first place. In other words, leechers.
I hadn't heard of that torrent site, but just as a test I googled this: "king kong torrent" try it, and check out the top links (the top two are from isohunt) That was just the first hollywood movie that popped into my head. It may well be that isohunt carried a lot of perfectly legal torrents, but any torrent site that carries a huge amount of copyrighted stuff is going to be attacked by the people owning the copyright. If you really want to support legal p2p, you need to make damn sure your site is absolutely rigorous when it comes to filtering out illegal content.
In an ideal world, the anti-DRM, pro p2p crowd would be the very people who were actively moderating sites like these and keeping them clean of illegal content. As it is, nobody is going to take seriously any claims about such sites being mostly for legal use.
i see. I dont have enough money to employ a lawyer, so you declare my entire business model a failure. how tragic. believe it or not there are tens of thousands of businesses smaller than mine, and they manage to survive without needing a lawyer. I dont give a toss if the people in brazil dont respect copyright, but if they host a server with pirated software for people in the UK or USA then I do care. Nice to know that the lawyers can't do sod all about that though, I guess the technological solution (DRM) kind of outguns the law in this case. Not that I can think of any situation where the best solution is "we need more lawyers". The state should enforce the law. There shouldnt be a need for private companies or individuals to pay lawyers to get the existing copyright law enforced.
ok, so a small 1 man business with next to nothing as a legal budget. how do I sue someone hosting a warez site in somalia? What if it's hosted in a country that does not even accept the principle of copyright? what then? No suprise to hear a lawyer touting court cases as the answer to our problems... Few people would agree with you. Nice gravy train for the lawyers though.
So enlighten me, how does one enforce copyright without DRM. have you ever tried? Have you tried doing something about illegal file sharing on p2p networks? How far did you get? DRM is by no means perfect, but its a lot more effective than some implied threat that someone in china will be sued by a US company if they share your work on bit-torrent. Show me widespread enforcement of copyright, and I'll agree with you 100%, DRM is a pain in the backside. Unfortunately, its the most effective way to enforce copyright at the moment.
yes, but not trivially, for ordinary people. You have to risk spyware infested sites etc. The casual user doesn't have easy access to pirated content yet. p2p is not as easy to use as microsoft word. But it's getting there. To suggest that piracy wouldnt be worse if it was easier is just naive. And don't spin out the usual rubbish about 'media barons'. A lot of content is made by small 1-10 man companies. Just because you are creative does not make you "teh evil media baron". last I checked, pirates are just as quick to pirate content by the little guy as they are by Sony. basically, they just don't give a shit about the consequences of their actions.
The problem with your solution is that piracy is allowed to run rampant. Piracy is growing, and if left unchecked it will eat seriously into the amount of revenue that content creators can expect to get for their work. There will come a 'tipping point' where piracy is *so* rampant (as it is in some 3rd world countries) that buying legal copies will become old-fashioned and will collapse entirely. This is not vaguely desirable, unless you think that you are happy to get by purely with hobbyist content.
DRM needs to be improved, and it needs to be labelled and limited, to prevent stupid restrictions. Much of DRM is far too invasive and aggressive, and that's a problem that needs fixing, but I suspect DRM will be with us for the long haul in some form or another. A future where people try to make a living creating work that others can copy freely without any compensation paid to the content creator is just a pipe dream. That does *not* work as an economic model, outside of the hobbyist niche.
I've said it before, the people to blame for DRM are pirates. If there were not terrabytes of Hollywood movies being openly shared on bit-torrent, movie companies would not be in such a rush to invest in expensive DRM solutions. Everyone blames sony, MPAA, RIAA etc. In reality, these people are just fighting against the hardcore pirates who take other peoples work and distribute it. Some even get in a strop on forums if people don't 'thank them for their work'. Ironic, as they are sending a big two fingers up to the people who actually spent 2 years making the movie, rather than 20 minutes ripping it.
Yeah, a 15yo can distribute music really effectively. Thats because he doesn't get anyone to pay for it. Giving stuff away for free is about a million times easier than running a business. Anyone who *does* actually run a business will tell you that. Like it or not, recording studios cost money, microphones cost money, movie studios and special effects cost *big* money. Set designers, sound engineers, actors, writers, directors and producers all have bills to pay. The only reasonable systems we have to get these people paid are:
1)state funding of all entertainment. Entertainment free at point of use. Govt officials make decisions on what entertainment is funded.
2)entertainment provided by hobbyists. Great in some ways, but vastly limits scope and quality of projects such as video games and movies. Likely massive reduction in amount of content produced.
3)current capitalist system. Content produced on a speculative basis by entrepreneurs. Creative types paid per usage, and thus rewarded in line with the popularity of their creations. Strong incentive to produce popular work. Copyright enforced.
4)donationware. as 3) but no enforcement of copyright. Free distribution and copying. Likely massive drop in size of market, probably below 1% of its current size. (my guess, feel free to dispute).
Personally I prefer 3. DRM is one of the uglier consequences of it, but as someone who likes good movies, games, books and music, I'm choosing the system that maximises the amount of high quality content that is produced. And that's surely 3). That system is currently undermined by 15yo kids in moms basement who don't understand that musicians and movie industry workers have bills to pay, mainly because he's living in moms basement. I say those 15yo kids need to grow up and act more responsibly. Being opposed to DRM is fine, understandable, and worthy. Somehow thinking you are making a protest against it by sharing your entire music collection on p2p is just idiotic, especially given that by defintion you are hurting the exact list of artists you claim to like the most.
actually in some ways DRM *does* work. It works to deter the ultra-casual piracy you would get without it. Without DRM, I could copy all 3,256 star trek DVDs I own for my mate Gareth. With DRM, he would need to buy them himself. If I was *really* hardcore about piracy, I know I could go to some websites and torrent sites and get the tools I need to bypass the DRM, or I could download some lower quality ripped avi files for him. In practice, like 90% of people, I won't bother, and my mate will buy the DVDs himself.
DRM is like parking fines. It's not 100% effective in preventing people parking somewhere dodgy, but it means 90% of people obey the rules, and the system works. No law is obeyed or enforced 100%. Piracy exists, and I'd suggest its worryingly high, but its a *lot* lower than it would be without any DRM.
I don't use DRM, but I understand why other companies do. I believe they have the right to do so*, and I believe that, within limits, it works for them. Anyone posting in a DRM debate on slashdot, by definition falls outside the casual user demographic, so it doesn't really matter that most people here know how to circumvent DRM.
*but they do not have any right to pass stupid laws to *insist* on DRM for all content, regardless of the intentions of the content creator, as this silly law seems to desire.
You realise what you are describing is communism right? Fine, if you like that kind of thing, North Korea would love to have you as a new citizen. I look forward to laughing my socks off as you explain how your ideas are *not* communism.
I understand where you're coming from. I'm five years older than you, and I remember watching documentaries on the effects of a nuclear strike as a kid. We had a general assumption that it was pretty much a matter of time back then. When reagan was president and was joking on a live mic about bombing russia, it just wasn't funny for people who didn't have access to an underground bunker. I'd like to think that this is all behind us, and I agree, the chances of a US V Russia nuclear war are minimal now, but sadly, I think climate change is getting to the point where its just as bad a concern. I don't expect there will be some nuclear-war scale tsunmai or similar event that will flatten London, but I *do* expect there to be enough seriously destructive weather events that lead us towards mass refugee problems, maybe some localised wars over resources, and some serious disruptions to the global economy as the climate shit hits the fan, and oil prices go insane. Maybe that's just me justifying not having a pension though:D
bullshit. lets say you build sailboat in your back garden, am I entitled to use it? what's so flipping *magical* about music, games and movies that somehow people think they are born with a right to take those works for free? What I do in my own time, on my own property, with my own effort is MINE. I don't need some hippie philosopher to tell me that ideas I have in my head automatically belong to everyone else. This is the kind of immature argument often made by kids living in their moms basement. Once they grow up and get a job, you look upon being compensated for your work very differently. If YOU want to go create some 'cultural heritage' and release it for free, nobody is stopping you.
"the losing candidate in a national election where the country was almost exactly split"
I was under the impression more people voted for gore than bush. Popular vote wise, he is your rightful president. In terms of the will of the people, he is your rightful president, in terms of absolute democracy, he is the rightful president. Only the stupidity of a quirky electoral system has allowed you to make a claim that he somehow lost.
Yes I know the UK has a similarly stupid system. That's why we have Tony Blair, despite him being hugely unpopular here.
Its not yours to share. You cant take other peoples work and distribute it to people. What part of this do you not understand exactly? If you feel so strongly about DRM, feel free to go make YOUR OWN content, and you can make it DRM and open source, or freeware or whatever rocks your boat. I just don't understand where you think you are born with the right to take other peoples content. Theres no law against you giving away content that you create for free. Funnily enough, the vast majority of creative people need to eat, and have bills to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
what waste of scarce resources? most solutions to man made climate change require us to become more efficient in our resource usage. surely "Collosal waste of scarce resources" means driving a hummer to walmart to do grocery shopping?
There's a difference between the global warming debate and other scientific debates, and that's timescale. We can argue for the next thousand years if evolution or creationists are right, it really doesn't matter apart from proving a point. We can argue for ten million years about whether or not string theory is right, or how black holes are formed, or how gravity really works etc etc etc.
The problem with the man made climate change theory is that it predicts a catastrophic outcome that *can be avoided or mitigated heavily* in the *SHORT* term.
The climate change scientists *might* be wrong.
But I don't want to take the risk. The thought of coming over all smug in 20 years because I was right and climate change *is* caused by us, will be little comfort if my house is under water at that point.
It might be academically a bit awkward, but we have actually run out of time for further debate on this one. Some may say we ran out of time 20 years ago. This may make debating societies angry, but I suspect we are going to have to just deal with that.
"they should be grateful that i like them, because i would possibly go to a concert to see them"
maybe your local shop should be grateful you steal their apples. one day, you might buy a banana right?
agreed, that in that case the store loses an apple, but the main point is that it's up to the person providing content to determine how best to market it, not you. You have no rights over other peoples hard work. If they are charging too much (in YOUR opinion) that's their decision, you have no right to over-rule them. Add top this the fact that humans are VERY good at kidding ourselves and self-justifying, and saying "i wouldnt have bought it" is easy to say once we have a stolen copy.
I agree with you 100%. Many of the stunts pulled by the RIAA, MPAA etc are totally evil. Whoever at sony thought that putting a rootkit on peoples PCs was a good idea needs shooting. I'd like to see copyright expire MUCH quicker than it currently does, and I totally agree with you on format shifting (some of my games have a mac version, and despite the port being done by a 3rd party, we have a deal in place to allow our customers to format shift in either direction). :(
You are right about the growth of the small independents (in all industries) being a positive force in all this mess. However, what depresses me is that I've seen no evidence at all that people who torrent the big evil megacorp products also treat the little guy better. In fact, you will find software done by 1-2 man companies torrented alongside the likes of Halo. If people were torrenting content to show how they dislike the vile cartel style system, they should be supporting people outside that system. Unfortunately, they don't seem to do so, which makes me think that most people torrenting content have no real gripe or agenda, they just want stuff for free, regardles who made it or what their policy is towards customers
you didn't even do any research before you slung that last insult. In fact my first game (star Miner / asteroid miner) has its source code freely available, its linked to on a number of gamedev sites. I made it available about 3 years ago, way before your ten year deadline. In fact, a quick google found this:G uide-CD-ROM/dp/1568811934
http://www.amazon.com/Game-Programming-Beginners-
a book that has the games source code in it. (i didnt even know about the book till just now).
I also did it with Rocky Racers, another old game of mine, and fully intend to do it with my other games in a few years.
I'm opposed to rootkits and other silly tactics, in favour of a right to backup, and a right to format shift.Anyone who buys a mac copy of my games can request a free pc copy, and vice versa (where available).
Not everyone who is opposed to people illegally torrenting stuff is automatically an evil MPAA shill. Some of us just care about being paid when we create something popular.
99%?
don't quote figures if your pulling them out of your ass. Many many years ago I was in a band that got offered a record deal. yes, the deals suck, but they don't suck to the extent of 1% going to the artists.
pretending that they only get 1% might make you feel better, but it's bullshit.
I think you will find that the artists aren't getting some token sum from the RIAA. they get what was in the contract. Many bands have smart accountants (like the rolling stones) who 100% ensure they get every penny they are entitled to.
Sorry if that makes it harder for you to feel justified in taking the music for free.
Firstly I'm not American. secondly I am in total disagreement with you. I make games for a living, and its fucking hard work. You seem to think you were born with some basic right to take the fruit of my labour without compensation. The way I see it that makes you one of the following:
1) a communist
2) a leecher
3) an idiot.
Choose.
Or explain why you have the RIGHT to take my hard work for free? Then explain my incentive to do any further work if that's true? note that this generalises to everyone on planet earth that makes any content at all that can be encoded digitally.
"The **AA are subhumans (more or less) who are trying to create a supply and demand situation where the demand is greater than the supply by choking off all supplies but their own"
Oh dear. you REALLY think that statement is true?
firstly, they are not 'subhuman'. secondly, there is nothing preventing you going home right now, writing some music or making an amateur movie, and releasing it free on the web. The fact that you don't bother, but would rather make illegal copies of other peoples work instead, speaks volumes about the issue. They are not restricting the supply of entertainment. not even vaguely.
If you really gave a damn about the issue, you would avoid *evil RIAA* content entirely and stick to free content, or purchase your content directly from the content creators. Either way, downloading hollywood movies from isohunt makes their point, not yours.
well said. The pseudo intellectual gibberish spouted on slashdot about how 'information should be free' is always peddled by those who don't generate that information or content in the first place. In other words, leechers.
I hadn't heard of that torrent site, but just as a test I googled this:
"king kong torrent"
try it, and check out the top links (the top two are from isohunt)
That was just the first hollywood movie that popped into my head.
It may well be that isohunt carried a lot of perfectly legal torrents, but any torrent site that carries a huge amount of copyrighted stuff is going to be attacked by the people owning the copyright. If you really want to support legal p2p, you need to make damn sure your site is absolutely rigorous when it comes to filtering out illegal content.
In an ideal world, the anti-DRM, pro p2p crowd would be the very people who were actively moderating sites like these and keeping them clean of illegal content. As it is, nobody is going to take seriously any claims about such sites being mostly for legal use.
Yep, I could guess your a lawyer from your attitude alright.
Goodbye.
i see. I dont have enough money to employ a lawyer, so you declare my entire business model a failure. how tragic. believe it or not there are tens of thousands of businesses smaller than mine, and they manage to survive without needing a lawyer. I dont give a toss if the people in brazil dont respect copyright, but if they host a server with pirated software for people in the UK or USA then I do care. Nice to know that the lawyers can't do sod all about that though, I guess the technological solution (DRM) kind of outguns the law in this case.
Not that I can think of any situation where the best solution is "we need more lawyers". The state should enforce the law. There shouldnt be a need for private companies or individuals to pay lawyers to get the existing copyright law enforced.
"Actually, I don't care about your problems."
Yes so it would seem.
ok, so a small 1 man business with next to nothing as a legal budget. how do I sue someone hosting a warez site in somalia? What if it's hosted in a country that does not even accept the principle of copyright? what then?
No suprise to hear a lawyer touting court cases as the answer to our problems... Few people would agree with you. Nice gravy train for the lawyers though.
So enlighten me, how does one enforce copyright without DRM. have you ever tried? Have you tried doing something about illegal file sharing on p2p networks? How far did you get?
DRM is by no means perfect, but its a lot more effective than some implied threat that someone in china will be sued by a US company if they share your work on bit-torrent.
Show me widespread enforcement of copyright, and I'll agree with you 100%, DRM is a pain in the backside. Unfortunately, its the most effective way to enforce copyright at the moment.
yes, but not trivially, for ordinary people. You have to risk spyware infested sites etc. The casual user doesn't have easy access to pirated content yet. p2p is not as easy to use as microsoft word. But it's getting there.
To suggest that piracy wouldnt be worse if it was easier is just naive.
And don't spin out the usual rubbish about 'media barons'. A lot of content is made by small 1-10 man companies. Just because you are creative does not make you "teh evil media baron". last I checked, pirates are just as quick to pirate content by the little guy as they are by Sony. basically, they just don't give a shit about the consequences of their actions.
The problem with your solution is that piracy is allowed to run rampant. Piracy is growing, and if left unchecked it will eat seriously into the amount of revenue that content creators can expect to get for their work. There will come a 'tipping point' where piracy is *so* rampant (as it is in some 3rd world countries) that buying legal copies will become old-fashioned and will collapse entirely. This is not vaguely desirable, unless you think that you are happy to get by purely with hobbyist content.
DRM needs to be improved, and it needs to be labelled and limited, to prevent stupid restrictions. Much of DRM is far too invasive and aggressive, and that's a problem that needs fixing, but I suspect DRM will be with us for the long haul in some form or another. A future where people try to make a living creating work that others can copy freely without any compensation paid to the content creator is just a pipe dream. That does *not* work as an economic model, outside of the hobbyist niche.
I've said it before, the people to blame for DRM are pirates. If there were not terrabytes of Hollywood movies being openly shared on bit-torrent, movie companies would not be in such a rush to invest in expensive DRM solutions. Everyone blames sony, MPAA, RIAA etc. In reality, these people are just fighting against the hardcore pirates who take other peoples work and distribute it. Some even get in a strop on forums if people don't 'thank them for their work'. Ironic, as they are sending a big two fingers up to the people who actually spent 2 years making the movie, rather than 20 minutes ripping it.
Yeah, a 15yo can distribute music really effectively. Thats because he doesn't get anyone to pay for it. Giving stuff away for free is about a million times easier than running a business. Anyone who *does* actually run a business will tell you that.
Like it or not, recording studios cost money, microphones cost money, movie studios and special effects cost *big* money. Set designers, sound engineers, actors, writers, directors and producers all have bills to pay. The only reasonable systems we have to get these people paid are:
1)state funding of all entertainment. Entertainment free at point of use. Govt officials make decisions on what entertainment is funded.
2)entertainment provided by hobbyists. Great in some ways, but vastly limits scope and quality of projects such as video games and movies. Likely massive reduction in amount of content produced.
3)current capitalist system. Content produced on a speculative basis by entrepreneurs. Creative types paid per usage, and thus rewarded in line with the popularity of their creations. Strong incentive to produce popular work. Copyright enforced.
4)donationware. as 3) but no enforcement of copyright. Free distribution and copying. Likely massive drop in size of market, probably below 1% of its current size. (my guess, feel free to dispute).
Personally I prefer 3. DRM is one of the uglier consequences of it, but as someone who likes good movies, games, books and music, I'm choosing the system that maximises the amount of high quality content that is produced. And that's surely 3).
That system is currently undermined by 15yo kids in moms basement who don't understand that musicians and movie industry workers have bills to pay, mainly because he's living in moms basement. I say those 15yo kids need to grow up and act more responsibly. Being opposed to DRM is fine, understandable, and worthy. Somehow thinking you are making a protest against it by sharing your entire music collection on p2p is just idiotic, especially given that by defintion you are hurting the exact list of artists you claim to like the most.
*sigh*
you don't get it do you?
"Stick one in your Linux or Mac computer"
I don't have one
"open a terminal, type dd if=/dev/cdrom of=filename.iso"
flibble flubble gluck wook zog. Yes I *am* a geek, but to 99% of PC owners I know, your typing in egyptian. That was the *whole point* of my argument.
"try use your bought-and-paid-for content the way you want"
That doesn't involve copying it all for my mate gareth anyway surely?
actually in some ways DRM *does* work. It works to deter the ultra-casual piracy you would get without it. Without DRM, I could copy all 3,256 star trek DVDs I own for my mate Gareth. With DRM, he would need to buy them himself. If I was *really* hardcore about piracy, I know I could go to some websites and torrent sites and get the tools I need to bypass the DRM, or I could download some lower quality ripped avi files for him. In practice, like 90% of people, I won't bother, and my mate will buy the DVDs himself.
DRM is like parking fines. It's not 100% effective in preventing people parking somewhere dodgy, but it means 90% of people obey the rules, and the system works. No law is obeyed or enforced 100%. Piracy exists, and I'd suggest its worryingly high, but its a *lot* lower than it would be without any DRM.
I don't use DRM, but I understand why other companies do. I believe they have the right to do so*, and I believe that, within limits, it works for them. Anyone posting in a DRM debate on slashdot, by definition falls outside the casual user demographic, so it doesn't really matter that most people here know how to circumvent DRM.
*but they do not have any right to pass stupid laws to *insist* on DRM for all content, regardless of the intentions of the content creator, as this silly law seems to desire.
You realise what you are describing is communism right?
Fine, if you like that kind of thing, North Korea would love to have you as a new citizen.
I look forward to laughing my socks off as you explain how your ideas are *not* communism.
Yeah but on the plus side, we could have judas priest do our new national anthem.
Oh yes...
I understand where you're coming from. I'm five years older than you, and I remember watching documentaries on the effects of a nuclear strike as a kid. We had a general assumption that it was pretty much a matter of time back then. When reagan was president and was joking on a live mic about bombing russia, it just wasn't funny for people who didn't have access to an underground bunker. :D
I'd like to think that this is all behind us, and I agree, the chances of a US V Russia nuclear war are minimal now, but sadly, I think climate change is getting to the point where its just as bad a concern.
I don't expect there will be some nuclear-war scale tsunmai or similar event that will flatten London, but I *do* expect there to be enough seriously destructive weather events that lead us towards mass refugee problems, maybe some localised wars over resources, and some serious disruptions to the global economy as the climate shit hits the fan, and oil prices go insane.
Maybe that's just me justifying not having a pension though
bullshit. lets say you build sailboat in your back garden, am I entitled to use it? what's so flipping *magical* about music, games and movies that somehow people think they are born with a right to take those works for free?
What I do in my own time, on my own property, with my own effort is MINE. I don't need some hippie philosopher to tell me that ideas I have in my head automatically belong to everyone else.
This is the kind of immature argument often made by kids living in their moms basement. Once they grow up and get a job, you look upon being compensated for your work very differently.
If YOU want to go create some 'cultural heritage' and release it for free, nobody is stopping you.
"the losing candidate in a national election where the country was almost exactly split"
I was under the impression more people voted for gore than bush. Popular vote wise, he is your rightful president. In terms of the will of the people, he is your rightful president, in terms of absolute democracy, he is the rightful president.
Only the stupidity of a quirky electoral system has allowed you to make a claim that he somehow lost.
Yes I know the UK has a similarly stupid system. That's why we have Tony Blair, despite him being hugely unpopular here.
Its not yours to share. You cant take other peoples work and distribute it to people. What part of this do you not understand exactly?
If you feel so strongly about DRM, feel free to go make YOUR OWN content, and you can make it DRM and open source, or freeware or whatever rocks your boat. I just don't understand where you think you are born with the right to take other peoples content.
Theres no law against you giving away content that you create for free. Funnily enough, the vast majority of creative people need to eat, and have bills to pay.