I think Brainbench had the right idea, just have many little certifications that make up the summary of your qualifications.
I agree. There should be a way to divide fields into something called "subjects", and to become certified in each of these individual workshops ("courses"). Once a person ("student") becomes proficient in the basics of each of these "courses", he or she can move on to higher-level "courses" that provide a more in-depth explanation of the "material".
There will certainly need to be a way to evaluate these "students", so we'll assign them "grades". It would be nice to have some sort of record of this student, so we'll have a database called a "transcript" for each student.
Huzzah, a revolution in education!
In all seriousness, I think higher education deserves the respect that it gets. At the risk of sounding redundant, a certification does not equal knowledge, and a college education is much more than the sum of its parts. I've found that by going to class and making an attempt to be interested, I've become intrigued by fields that I otherwise probably would have avoided (like Statistics and Finance).
I realize college isn't for everybody (on either end of the spectrum), but to imply that a college student is in college because he is not intelligent enough to learn the material on his own is, well, wrong.
I agree with your post as a whole, but this part kind of struck me:
I watched a TLC program on Mitnick last night, never once did the reporter ask if Mitnick might be socally engineering him with a carefully chosen set of lies to make Mitnick sound like a victim rather than a crook.
What did you expect?
Interviewer: Mr. Mitnick, are you not telling me the whole story, but rather inventing facts in an attempt to mislead me into believing that you really didn't do anything wrong?
User-Mode Linux provides you with a virtual machine that offers 'a safe, secure way of running Linux versions and Linux processes. Run buggy software, experiment with new Linux kernels or distributions, and poke around in the internals of Linux, all without risking your main Linux setup.'
Finally, something that will get Linux accepted as a viable desktop operating system for all levels of users!
What's up with those microwaves that kick on a full blast and then off for a period of time (depending on what your cooking power is set at)? I have one, and it absolutely sucks. It's pretty new, too (3 years).
What's wrong with operating at a lower power all the time rather than HIGH... off... HIGH... off... ?
It is the corporate officer's duty to undertake whatever actions maximize stockholder benefit.
You're completely failing to recognize that shareholder benefit is not the only driving force in business. While it is true that a company's ultimate goal is to profit, entire books have been written on business ethics. I think capitalism is a good thing, but a Damn the Torpedoes! style of seeking profitability is simply not socially correct.
Think about why we have child labor laws. While it is (perhaps surprisingly) a strongly-debated topic, how are the arguments based? Not on profitability, they're based on what is best for society. One camp says that child labor is wrong because it exploits children. The other (e.g. The Economist) say that child labor should be permitted because it will provide a better quality of life for those involved. And while there are a handful of truly evil people who would exploit children solely to attain higher profits, you can't base any viable business theory on them.
I agree that any company has a serious obligation to its stockholders. I don't expect auto manufacturers to sacrifice 90% of their current profit in order to lower exhaust polution by 2%. But ignoring ethics for the sake of profitability is simply not how we as a whole want companies to behave.
50 years ago you could copy a book by hand or with a large expensive printing press. Private individuals did not normally have access to a large printing press.
But technology has changed, so you have to expect the laws to evolve to reflect that. In effect we've essentially given private individals large printing presses. That is, we've made it so that he/she can violate copyright law with almost no effort.
Copying books by hand, however, had a long exemption from copyright--at least in Europe--though it died out in modern times, so I'm not sure if there is any notice of the exemption in American law.
I also don't know about American law in regards to the subject at hand, but it's certainly not illegal for me to record myself singing "Baby, One More Time" and distributing it (if it's not for profit, IIRC - think about bands covering songs). Of course it's still illegal to take Britney's copy and distribute it. I think that small adjustment to the analogy is necessary to bring things up with the times, so to speak.
I was trying to say that the 'very minor punishment' is a new thing.
I don't think it is. If a publisher knew of someone who was illegally distributing their works, they might take him to court for a small sum, or have some other sort of minor legal action taken against them.
Copyright infringement has never before been a crime committed by individuals procuring their own entertainment.
I don't think this is either. While obtaining material that you know to be stolen (s/stolen/infringed\ upon) is illegal, I think everybody is wanting to go after the actual distributors. I don't think even Ashcroft would go so far as to say we should go after the kid who downloads a copy of a latest-and-greatest MTV single.
Always before it has been a crime that could only be comitted by major distributors. After all, those were the only people copyright law applied to 50 years ago.
Are you sure? I don't have any citations to back this up, but I doubt it was legal fifty years ago for someone to copy a book and distrbute it without having permission from the author/publisher.
Stealing a song is not like stealing a car. One involves the deprivation of a personal property, and the other involves breaking a social contract.
You're exactly right, and that's why someone who steals a car is probably going to prison for a short period, while someone who illegally copies a CD will most likely get a very minor punishment.
If he were so smart he'd release some mp3s to napster with links to his site in them, and people wouldd go buy his cds if they like it, or buy his mp3s and burn them.
For the little guy who will never get a contract and be on MTV and be on the Billboard lists, that's probably not a bad idea. An artst with a small, devoted following might make a couple hundred dollars selling MP3s from a website (although, if you think about hosting costs, you'd have to have more than just a few dozen people actually buying your MP3s). But obviously the record industry has decided that they don't want to distribute their copyrighted material this way, and for good reason: it's not as profitable.
Yes, as hard as it may be to believe, record execs don't care as much about art (getting truly good music out there, profits be damned) as they do their bank accounts. That part isn't a shock to anyone. And that's the reason I am *sure* that the record industry has put in a massive amount of energy determining how to handle this whole MP3 situation. You don't make billion-dollar PR and legal moves by flipping a coin.
That's why I'm so surprised that people can't fathom how the RIAA can be so ignorant. "MP3 is the wave of the future! The record labels are stuck in the past!" When you see hundreds of 13 year-olds screaming for an artist who built his or her reputation solely by online distribution, that's when you'll know that the tides are changing.
And go to class. There will be some times that you'll go and think "I didn't learn a thing." Even if you know the material well, you'll be learning what you'll be tested on. I promise you, there is a direct correlation with attendence and good grades. Besides, no cute girls are going to ask you to help them study if you're never in class. You've got to learn how to play that "I'm not a nerd, but I know a lot" angle well.
Oh yeah, Frats suck, don't waste your time. After a year or so, you'll start to notice how much people despise frat boys, you don't want to be one of them.
Yeah, most people despise the fratboy stereotype, but I have some good friends who are in fraternities.
One thing I do notice, is that those friends start to hate being in the fraternity right around the second semester of their sophomore year. They've met some folks through the greek system, they've had some fun times, but they start to want to do other things, and the fraternity BS gets in the way. You 100% do *not* need to be in a fraternity to meet people - even girls. Because for the most part, you don't want to have anything to do with those girls who only seem to like guys in frats. You'll meet plenty of cool people, both guys and girls, just from being around campus. A lot of this comes from just talking to people in class and around campus.
College kicks ass, I'm a little bit disappointed that this is my last year, but I can't count the number of ways that I've matured and basically become a better person because of these last few years.
I understand your logic, and I see how the example you gave could be beneficial for all involved. But it sounds suspiciously like the arguments that are commonly made for trading copyrighted music. Yes, I'm sure there are many instances where somebody has downloaded a copy of So-and-so's latest single, decided that they liked it, and bought the CD that they otherwise would not have bought. Everybody is happy, and there was much rejoicing.
The problem is, the copyright holder (of either the software or the music, whatever the case may be) doesn't allow such "trials" to take place. The way I see it, there are two reasons for this:
1. The company realizes that there may be some benefit to them by allowing the piracy to go on (such as the case mentioned above), but they feel that the costs outweigh the benefits. They may or may not be right.
2. The company (incorrectly) does not see any benefit that can come to them through piracy. This lack of information may happen to be good for them (costs > benefits) or bad for them (benefits > costs).
The issue that I have, in either of the two cases, is that we as (potential) consumers have no right to make this decision for the company. Even if we violate copyright with the best intentions ("If I like this copy of Photoshop, I'll buy 50 licenses for my company."), we have still overstepped our rights. If a company is smart, they have invested a lot of energy into determining the price for their product, including educational licensing prices. I have to believe that Microsoft knows what is best for the company better than I do.
No, you're not depriving content distributers of the revenue that they are "entitled" to: You are forcing them to provide a quality product, instead of a slickly-marketed one.
But as you pointed out, that's illegal. You may not consider it unethical, but a lot of people do. Just because you don't like the business model doesn't give you the authority to circumvent it illegally.
I think we've got a difference of opinion on this one, and I doubt either of us is going to change our respective position. But let me ask you this: Let's say XYZ Band comes out with a new CD and you download it and decide that although it has a couple of good songs, you don't want to buy the CD. Do you then delete the entire CD, or do you keep it (or at least those couple of songs) under the guise of "Well I wouldn't buy it anyway."? If it's the latter (and I've got a sneaking suspicion that it is), do you consider that ethical?
Essentially, if you don't want to "pay $20 for a CD that some marketroid packed with crap," you can choose not to. I do it all the time. What I don't do is justify my illegal actions by blaming the musicians or the RIAA.
P.S. Don't take this as a flame, I'm just debating this subject, not attacking you as a person.
My point is, if you do your survey correctly, if 40% of your respondents indicate that they like Murder She Wrote, it's safe to say that 40% of your user base also does, plus or minus a small percentage. That's the whole point of statistics.
That's assuming that the respondants represent an accurate model of your population. My argument is that that's not the case in optional, online polling. Maybe 40% of the respondants like Murder She Wrote, but maybe 70% of respondants were between the ages of 50 and 70.
Uh, yes you can. You can like a band enough to listen to them if it is free, but not enough to shell out $15 for them if you couldn't get it for free.
No, the key phrase here is "instead of buying it." When we see headlines like "Software Piracy Costs Microsoft $500 million Each Year", we say, "But not all of those people who pirated it would have bought it." In this case, however, the study is saying "Instead of buying the CD, these people just copied it."
I'm playing the Devil's advocate here. I don't really think you're a bad person, but just play along...
I actually purchase fewer cds than I did before - not because I'm cheap, but because I now have the opportunity to listen to albums before I put my hard earned cash into them. So yes, the record industry gets less of my money from poor purchases - conversely, the bands I truly enjoy and wish to support get more money from me than they would have previously.
Ok, but what gives you the right to do that? You're passing the cost of your information (deciding what music you like) on to the copyright holders by doing something illegal. If you would have bought 20 CDs in a year, but instead only buy 10 because you decided you didn't like the other ones after you illegally downloaded and listened to them, you're costing the copyright holders of those 10 CDs money (remember, we're assuming that you would have bought those 10 CDs).
In the same sense, if you download the VCD of whatever new movie with the thinking, "I want to see this movie in the theater, but only if it's good," you are depriving the theater owner of money. The cost of you seeing a movie that you thought you would like but didn't is built in to the system. Now, do you still think that your practices are good business for the RIAA?
The Edison study shows that 53% of 12-17 year olds have burned a CD instead of buying it. Unless you disagree with the data (and I mean scientifically, not just "no way, man!"), you can't argue that such activities don't cost the copyright holders money in the form of a lost sale. So the real question is, is that money made up? It's certainly possible that the 53% mentioned previously bought two CDs that they would not have otherwise bought, thanks to MP3s they downloaded for free.
The study also says that 22% of Americans 12-44 say that you don't have to buy CDs any more, you can just download it for free. Again, unless the data was not correctly put together, that's keeping profits from the copyright holder. So is the other 78% buying enough extra music because of illegal file swapping to make up for the 22% who isn't? I'm sure there are several/. posters who have bought a few extra CDs in the last year because they heard it online for free first, but we all know that the/. demographic != that of America (or the rest of the world, for that matter).
...what really pisses me off is places that correllate the state you select with the zip code. Places like that seem to be deliberately positioning themselves AGAINST me, so I intentionally fill it with erroneous data because they have become my adversary in the case of this page.
You seem to have some sort of problem with this, as if they are somehow tricking you. No, it's just a validity check in an attempt to ensure accurate data. What I find interesting is that they would give you an error and ask you to fill in the form again.
Let me explain: let's say you've filled out a 10-question form asking for name, email, age, location, and a few "consumer behavior" questions. If you've done all this accurately, it files your data and lets your proceed. But if you've done it inaccurately (in this case, filled out a ZIP/state that don't match), it kicks you back and makes you correct it. So this time you put in a valid ZIP/state. You submit it, and it files your data away and lets you proceed.
The problem is that your data still isn't accurate, and therefore should be thrown out. Maybe your ZIP/state is correct now, but maybe you just put 90210/CA. A much better solution from a data integrity standpoint is to allow that user to enter junk data, but to not factor in that bad data when drawing conclusions.
I think there needs to be much more research in this area if anybody expects to get good data out of the internet. IBM's studies seem to be a step in the right direction. Not only do they want to improve data integrity for the company, they're also factoring in another important issue: privacy.
I know that I never honestly fill out required forms. I'll fill in a bunch of bogus details, get the link, and be on my way. However, if the form is optional, I may download first and, if I like the program, provide some details to the company.
I agree with your theory, but I want to expound on it a little bit.
I don't think many people will be inclined to actually return to the site and voluntarily provide information. However, think about the people who would fill out optional forms in the first place. The demographic probably fits that of the casual internet user. That user is much more likely to provide accurate information - but just as importantly, they're unlikely to provide inaccurate information. So by making a form optional, you've seriously improved the integrity of your data.
Then, a company can look at that (supposedly very good) data and make assumptions about the users. However, they must be careful to not assume that the data is a full picture just because it is not innaccurate (I'm purposely not using the word "accurate"). In other words, if 40% of the respondants indicate that they like Murder She Wrote, you can't assume that that extrapolates to 40% of your user base. Instead, the company must associate that data only with the respondants. But since they have very accurate information about their respondants, they can assume that their conclusions are equally accurate.
So the question arises, "What about the non-respondants?" That's true, the company doesn't have accurate information about them. But what's better, good information about a small group, or bad information about a large one?
Slashdot Mirror
(I guess "CRT" is just an Apple trademark for Color Raster Technology).
Well if it is, you can expect a stack of cease-and-desist letters from Apple lawyers tomorrow morning.
You are, of course, using GNU/hello, right?
./hello -traditional)
(Take a look at the source code, it's interesting. But my favorite thing is that you can do
You just summarized college.
Apologies if it wasn't more obvious, but that's what I was trying to do.
I think Brainbench had the right idea, just have many little certifications that make up the summary of your qualifications.
I agree. There should be a way to divide fields into something called "subjects", and to become certified in each of these individual workshops ("courses"). Once a person ("student") becomes proficient in the basics of each of these "courses", he or she can move on to higher-level "courses" that provide a more in-depth explanation of the "material".
There will certainly need to be a way to evaluate these "students", so we'll assign them "grades". It would be nice to have some sort of record of this student, so we'll have a database called a "transcript" for each student.
Huzzah, a revolution in education!
In all seriousness, I think higher education deserves the respect that it gets. At the risk of sounding redundant, a certification does not equal knowledge, and a college education is much more than the sum of its parts. I've found that by going to class and making an attempt to be interested, I've become intrigued by fields that I otherwise probably would have avoided (like Statistics and Finance).
I realize college isn't for everybody (on either end of the spectrum), but to imply that a college student is in college because he is not intelligent enough to learn the material on his own is, well, wrong.
I agree with your post as a whole, but this part kind of struck me:
I watched a TLC program on Mitnick last night, never once did the reporter ask if Mitnick might be socally engineering him with a carefully chosen set of lies to make Mitnick sound like a victim rather than a crook.
What did you expect?
Interviewer: Mr. Mitnick, are you not telling me the whole story, but rather inventing facts in an attempt to mislead me into believing that you really didn't do anything wrong?
KM: Yes. [pause] Damn!
User-Mode Linux provides you with a virtual machine that offers 'a safe, secure way of running Linux versions and Linux processes. Run buggy software, experiment with new Linux kernels or distributions, and poke around in the internals of Linux, all without risking your main Linux setup.'
Finally, something that will get Linux accepted as a viable desktop operating system for all levels of users!
This reminds me of something...
What's up with those microwaves that kick on a full blast and then off for a period of time (depending on what your cooking power is set at)? I have one, and it absolutely sucks. It's pretty new, too (3 years).
What's wrong with operating at a lower power all the time rather than HIGH... off... HIGH... off... ?
...and finally, harnessed several dead horses together for increased speed.
A Beowulf cluster of dead horses? That should provide enough power to settle the emacs/vi debate.
Yeah, I called up Hillary Rosen to ask her if using my CDs to make a compilation disc for my personal use is stealing. She said it is.
If counting cards was actually cheating, the casinos would have card counters arrested rather than simply ejecting them.
It is the corporate officer's duty to undertake whatever actions maximize stockholder benefit.
You're completely failing to recognize that shareholder benefit is not the only driving force in business. While it is true that a company's ultimate goal is to profit, entire books have been written on business ethics. I think capitalism is a good thing, but a Damn the Torpedoes! style of seeking profitability is simply not socially correct.
Think about why we have child labor laws. While it is (perhaps surprisingly) a strongly-debated topic, how are the arguments based? Not on profitability, they're based on what is best for society. One camp says that child labor is wrong because it exploits children. The other (e.g. The Economist) say that child labor should be permitted because it will provide a better quality of life for those involved. And while there are a handful of truly evil people who would exploit children solely to attain higher profits, you can't base any viable business theory on them.
I agree that any company has a serious obligation to its stockholders. I don't expect auto manufacturers to sacrifice 90% of their current profit in order to lower exhaust polution by 2%. But ignoring ethics for the sake of profitability is simply not how we as a whole want companies to behave.
50 years ago you could copy a book by hand or with a large expensive printing press. Private individuals did not normally have access to a large printing press.
But technology has changed, so you have to expect the laws to evolve to reflect that. In effect we've essentially given private individals large printing presses. That is, we've made it so that he/she can violate copyright law with almost no effort.
Copying books by hand, however, had a long exemption from copyright--at least in Europe--though it died out in modern times, so I'm not sure if there is any notice of the exemption in American law.
I also don't know about American law in regards to the subject at hand, but it's certainly not illegal for me to record myself singing "Baby, One More Time" and distributing it (if it's not for profit, IIRC - think about bands covering songs). Of course it's still illegal to take Britney's copy and distribute it. I think that small adjustment to the analogy is necessary to bring things up with the times, so to speak.
I was trying to say that the 'very minor punishment' is a new thing.
I don't think it is. If a publisher knew of someone who was illegally distributing their works, they might take him to court for a small sum, or have some other sort of minor legal action taken against them.
Copyright infringement has never before been a crime committed by individuals procuring their own entertainment.
I don't think this is either. While obtaining material that you know to be stolen (s/stolen/infringed\ upon) is illegal, I think everybody is wanting to go after the actual distributors. I don't think even Ashcroft would go so far as to say we should go after the kid who downloads a copy of a latest-and-greatest MTV single.
Always before it has been a crime that could only be comitted by major distributors. After all, those were the only people copyright law applied to 50 years ago.
Are you sure? I don't have any citations to back this up, but I doubt it was legal fifty years ago for someone to copy a book and distrbute it without having permission from the author/publisher.
Stealing a song is not like stealing a car. One involves the deprivation of a personal property, and the other involves breaking a social contract.
You're exactly right, and that's why someone who steals a car is probably going to prison for a short period, while someone who illegally copies a CD will most likely get a very minor punishment.
If he were so smart he'd release some mp3s to napster with links to his site in them, and people wouldd go buy his cds if they like it, or buy his mp3s and burn them.
For the little guy who will never get a contract and be on MTV and be on the Billboard lists, that's probably not a bad idea. An artst with a small, devoted following might make a couple hundred dollars selling MP3s from a website (although, if you think about hosting costs, you'd have to have more than just a few dozen people actually buying your MP3s). But obviously the record industry has decided that they don't want to distribute their copyrighted material this way, and for good reason: it's not as profitable.
Yes, as hard as it may be to believe, record execs don't care as much about art (getting truly good music out there, profits be damned) as they do their bank accounts. That part isn't a shock to anyone. And that's the reason I am *sure* that the record industry has put in a massive amount of energy determining how to handle this whole MP3 situation. You don't make billion-dollar PR and legal moves by flipping a coin.
That's why I'm so surprised that people can't fathom how the RIAA can be so ignorant. "MP3 is the wave of the future! The record labels are stuck in the past!" When you see hundreds of 13 year-olds screaming for an artist who built his or her reputation solely by online distribution, that's when you'll know that the tides are changing.
A 3 hour class means 3 hours a week in class
Switch that to at least 3 hours a week in class.
And go to class. There will be some times that you'll go and think "I didn't learn a thing." Even if you know the material well, you'll be learning what you'll be tested on. I promise you, there is a direct correlation with attendence and good grades. Besides, no cute girls are going to ask you to help them study if you're never in class. You've got to learn how to play that "I'm not a nerd, but I know a lot" angle well.
Oh yeah, Frats suck, don't waste your time. After a year or so, you'll start to notice how much people despise frat boys, you don't want to be one of them.
Yeah, most people despise the fratboy stereotype, but I have some good friends who are in fraternities.
One thing I do notice, is that those friends start to hate being in the fraternity right around the second semester of their sophomore year. They've met some folks through the greek system, they've had some fun times, but they start to want to do other things, and the fraternity BS gets in the way. You 100% do *not* need to be in a fraternity to meet people - even girls. Because for the most part, you don't want to have anything to do with those girls who only seem to like guys in frats. You'll meet plenty of cool people, both guys and girls, just from being around campus. A lot of this comes from just talking to people in class and around campus.
College kicks ass, I'm a little bit disappointed that this is my last year, but I can't count the number of ways that I've matured and basically become a better person because of these last few years.
Trooper: Roger roger.
Roger Murdock: We have clearance Clarence.
Captain Oveur: Roger, Roger. What's our vector Victor?
Tower voice: Tower's radio clearance, over!
Captain Oveur: That's Clarence Oveur! Oveur.
Tower voice: Roger.
Roger Murdock: Huh?
Tower voice: Roger, over.
Roger Murdock: Huh?
Captain Oveur: Huh?
I went to a DefCon a few years ago and the place was crawling with feds.
That just makes for a good game of Spot the Fed.
I understand your logic, and I see how the example you gave could be beneficial for all involved. But it sounds suspiciously like the arguments that are commonly made for trading copyrighted music. Yes, I'm sure there are many instances where somebody has downloaded a copy of So-and-so's latest single, decided that they liked it, and bought the CD that they otherwise would not have bought. Everybody is happy, and there was much rejoicing.
The problem is, the copyright holder (of either the software or the music, whatever the case may be) doesn't allow such "trials" to take place. The way I see it, there are two reasons for this:
1. The company realizes that there may be some benefit to them by allowing the piracy to go on (such as the case mentioned above), but they feel that the costs outweigh the benefits. They may or may not be right.
2. The company (incorrectly) does not see any benefit that can come to them through piracy. This lack of information may happen to be good for them (costs > benefits) or bad for them (benefits > costs).
The issue that I have, in either of the two cases, is that we as (potential) consumers have no right to make this decision for the company. Even if we violate copyright with the best intentions ("If I like this copy of Photoshop, I'll buy 50 licenses for my company."), we have still overstepped our rights. If a company is smart, they have invested a lot of energy into determining the price for their product, including educational licensing prices. I have to believe that Microsoft knows what is best for the company better than I do.
No, you're not depriving content distributers of the revenue that they are "entitled" to: You are forcing them to provide a quality product, instead of a slickly-marketed one.
But as you pointed out, that's illegal. You may not consider it unethical, but a lot of people do. Just because you don't like the business model doesn't give you the authority to circumvent it illegally.
I think we've got a difference of opinion on this one, and I doubt either of us is going to change our respective position. But let me ask you this: Let's say XYZ Band comes out with a new CD and you download it and decide that although it has a couple of good songs, you don't want to buy the CD. Do you then delete the entire CD, or do you keep it (or at least those couple of songs) under the guise of "Well I wouldn't buy it anyway."? If it's the latter (and I've got a sneaking suspicion that it is), do you consider that ethical?
Essentially, if you don't want to "pay $20 for a CD that some marketroid packed with crap," you can choose not to. I do it all the time. What I don't do is justify my illegal actions by blaming the musicians or the RIAA.
P.S. Don't take this as a flame, I'm just debating this subject, not attacking you as a person.
My point is, if you do your survey correctly, if 40% of your respondents indicate that they like Murder She Wrote, it's safe to say that 40% of your user base also does, plus or minus a small percentage. That's the whole point of statistics.
That's assuming that the respondants represent an accurate model of your population. My argument is that that's not the case in optional, online polling. Maybe 40% of the respondants like Murder She Wrote, but maybe 70% of respondants were between the ages of 50 and 70.
Uh, yes you can. You can like a band enough to listen to them if it is free, but not enough to shell out $15 for them if you couldn't get it for free.
No, the key phrase here is "instead of buying it." When we see headlines like "Software Piracy Costs Microsoft $500 million Each Year", we say, "But not all of those people who pirated it would have bought it." In this case, however, the study is saying "Instead of buying the CD, these people just copied it."
I'm playing the Devil's advocate here. I don't really think you're a bad person, but just play along...
I actually purchase fewer cds than I did before - not because I'm cheap, but because I now have the opportunity to listen to albums before I put my hard earned cash into them. So yes, the record industry gets less of my money from poor purchases - conversely, the bands I truly enjoy and wish to support get more money from me than they would have previously.
Ok, but what gives you the right to do that? You're passing the cost of your information (deciding what music you like) on to the copyright holders by doing something illegal. If you would have bought 20 CDs in a year, but instead only buy 10 because you decided you didn't like the other ones after you illegally downloaded and listened to them, you're costing the copyright holders of those 10 CDs money (remember, we're assuming that you would have bought those 10 CDs).
In the same sense, if you download the VCD of whatever new movie with the thinking, "I want to see this movie in the theater, but only if it's good," you are depriving the theater owner of money. The cost of you seeing a movie that you thought you would like but didn't is built in to the system. Now, do you still think that your practices are good business for the RIAA?
The Edison study shows that 53% of 12-17 year olds have burned a CD instead of buying it. Unless you disagree with the data (and I mean scientifically, not just "no way, man!"), you can't argue that such activities don't cost the copyright holders money in the form of a lost sale. So the real question is, is that money made up? It's certainly possible that the 53% mentioned previously bought two CDs that they would not have otherwise bought, thanks to MP3s they downloaded for free.
/. posters who have bought a few extra CDs in the last year because they heard it online for free first, but we all know that the /. demographic != that of America (or the rest of the world, for that matter).
The study also says that 22% of Americans 12-44 say that you don't have to buy CDs any more, you can just download it for free. Again, unless the data was not correctly put together, that's keeping profits from the copyright holder. So is the other 78% buying enough extra music because of illegal file swapping to make up for the 22% who isn't? I'm sure there are several
...what really pisses me off is places that correllate the state you select with the zip code. Places like that seem to be deliberately positioning themselves AGAINST me, so I intentionally fill it with erroneous data because they have become my adversary in the case of this page.
You seem to have some sort of problem with this, as if they are somehow tricking you. No, it's just a validity check in an attempt to ensure accurate data. What I find interesting is that they would give you an error and ask you to fill in the form again.
Let me explain: let's say you've filled out a 10-question form asking for name, email, age, location, and a few "consumer behavior" questions. If you've done all this accurately, it files your data and lets your proceed. But if you've done it inaccurately (in this case, filled out a ZIP/state that don't match), it kicks you back and makes you correct it. So this time you put in a valid ZIP/state. You submit it, and it files your data away and lets you proceed.
The problem is that your data still isn't accurate, and therefore should be thrown out. Maybe your ZIP/state is correct now, but maybe you just put 90210/CA. A much better solution from a data integrity standpoint is to allow that user to enter junk data, but to not factor in that bad data when drawing conclusions.
I think there needs to be much more research in this area if anybody expects to get good data out of the internet. IBM's studies seem to be a step in the right direction. Not only do they want to improve data integrity for the company, they're also factoring in another important issue: privacy.
I know that I never honestly fill out required forms. I'll fill in a bunch of bogus details, get the link, and be on my way. However, if the form is optional, I may download first and, if I like the program, provide some details to the company.
I agree with your theory, but I want to expound on it a little bit.
I don't think many people will be inclined to actually return to the site and voluntarily provide information. However, think about the people who would fill out optional forms in the first place. The demographic probably fits that of the casual internet user. That user is much more likely to provide accurate information - but just as importantly, they're unlikely to provide inaccurate information. So by making a form optional, you've seriously improved the integrity of your data.
Then, a company can look at that (supposedly very good) data and make assumptions about the users. However, they must be careful to not assume that the data is a full picture just because it is not innaccurate (I'm purposely not using the word "accurate"). In other words, if 40% of the respondants indicate that they like Murder She Wrote, you can't assume that that extrapolates to 40% of your user base. Instead, the company must associate that data only with the respondants. But since they have very accurate information about their respondants, they can assume that their conclusions are equally accurate.
So the question arises, "What about the non-respondants?" That's true, the company doesn't have accurate information about them. But what's better, good information about a small group, or bad information about a large one?