And the overly naive guy loses yet another discussion because he is unable to present any rational arguments for his position. All he is able to do is to present his opinion as fact, and then attack people who don't agree.
And here you are doing the same! Do you have anything to say about music piracy? No? Didn't think so.
I already presented my rational arguments. You haven't addressed a single one of them. You haven't quoted anything and then responded to it. You haven't offered a counterpoint.
Oh, let's see! Calling me anti-capitalist because I disagreed with you, for one.
No, I said all you have is anti-capitalist rhetoric. See, kid, this goes back to the whole "not responding to my arguments" thing. You didn't and instead just rattled on about corporations instead of responding to my points about piracy and ripping artists off.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your crusade against common decency and rational debate.
You're right, I should follow your model of attacking the other person because you lack the ability to debate the issue.
This is not the first time you've made a complete fool of yourself. Your posting history and general reputation on Slashdot speaks for itself.
Ooh! The ol' "I will dismiss you based on an imaginary reputation I've invented for you to hide the fact I'm running screaming from the topic at hand--music piracy" routine.
Get back to me when you do a little research and can actually speak on the topic of music piracy. Next.
It's because it's Google, it's about an office suite alternative to Office, and it's about AJAX. The fact there is no tangible evidence for anything doesn't matter; these three ingredients thrown together in random increments get page hits on Slashdot.
Think about it, this entire article is really just the question in the headline. "Is there a Google Office in the works?" Well, uh, how should we know? What's the discussion going to be about? "Gee, I hope so." "Yeah. Go Google." "Yeah."
I've been visiting Digg more and more, where the news there is actually worthwhile (and it's updated way more often than this site!).
It goes both ways. When CD sales are down, people here argue that piracy has no correlation with it, and it's the music industry's fault for putting out bad music. When CD sales are up (as they were in Australia in one particular Slashdot article), people said piracy does has a correlation and boosted sales. Either piracy affects sales or it doesn't!
1) Most musicians don't do very well at all in their dealings with record companies. In general, under the current regime, the money doesn't go to the artists.
It does, but this is an issue between the artist and the record labels. Those contracts are willingly signed, and it varies between record labels. Nobody's holding a gun to people's heads to sign up with record labels, but they seem to keep doing it.
2) File sharing isn't damaging the record companies. This fact is also borne out by the record profits record companies are now reporting, despite the fact that file sharing has increased substantially over the last couple of years, and the fact that record companies are actually releasing fewer records.
CD sales are down. It doesn't matter if you believe file-sharing is damaging record companies. It's their intellectual property.
Should we believe it's okay to not compensate John Carmack for his years of work on Doom 3 because he's rich enough to drive a Ferrari and id made millions off the game?
3) Record companies could be making use of file sharing as part of major new business models.
iTunes is the #1 online music store. The "obsolete business model" argument is, well, obsolete.
The biggest problem, though, is that most heads of record companies are out-of-touch old men who not only don't have a clue about the technology, but they barely have a clue about music in the first place.
Agreed, but that doesn't justify not paying artists for their work. People on Slashdot like to disregard artists in the equation and often don't mention them at all. It's all about the RIAA, corporations, greedy crime syndicates, etc. Nobody wants to talk about the human beings who shelled out time and money in a studio for three months to put out the music they hoped people would buy so they could make a living. Touring is expensive and is usually done to promote an album release.
So what you read here is "RIAA, RIAA, RIAA" with no mention of the artists at all who are singing and playing on the record.
Welcome to the truth. The vast majority of P2P traffic is illegal piracy, nothing more. Some people are using this as veiled attempt to legally defend piracy. "Sure, we're ripping people off, but they're ORGANIZED CRIME SYNDICATES! Here's a shiny sign that says so, look at this, over here! Don't think about the issues of piracy or the artists not getting paid. Just distract yourself with the pretty, emotional sign!"
Your Rights Online: Another Victim Countersues RIAA Under RICO Act
Okay, right from the start, the headline is an editorial via the use of the term "victim."
from the racketeer-influenced-and-corrupt-organizations dept.
This is rather self-explanatory. Despite Slashdot calling for the RIAA to go after individual infringers back during the Napster lawsuit, Slashdot has done a 180 and is against that now, using anti-capitalist rhetoric to avoid discussing the issues of music piracy. You scapegoat "greedy corporations" with non-specific accusations in order to distract from discussing the artists not getting paid.
devnulljapan is one of many users to let us know that another single mother is taking the fight to the RIAA. More than just standing up to them however, Tanya Anderson has decided to go on the offensive and countersue.
Okay, this is reasonably neutral, although the "standing up to them" phrase is questionable. The RIAA did what it is legally entitled to do; go after infringers of its copyright that it found on the P2P networks. Again, CmdrTaco and company were supporting this idea back in 2000.
In a move that aims to put the RIAA on the same level as your average organized crime syndicate the suit identifies violations of the Oregon RICO Act in addition to 'fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.' Ms. Anderson has also demanded a trial by jury.
This is the kicker. "Average organized crime syndicate" is so blatantly over the top that the obvious intent is to stir the hornet's next of pro-piracy advocates on Slashdot (which has become P2P piracy central in the past couple of years) to generate page hits.
These kinds of skewed posts, with obvious propaganda and rhetoric, are what paints Slashdot in a poor light and keeps it from being taken seriously as more than a niche geek site with very rigid agendas and a strict groupthink policy, which goes like this:
1.) Everything Google does is newsworthy and good 2.) Everything Microsoft does is newsworthy but bad 3.) Any attempt by the RIAA in any way, shape, or form to protect its copyright is an infringement on the natural rights given by the Creator of a person to pirate stuff without having to pay for it 4.) Violating the copyright of the GPL is "stolen code" that the EFF should pursue legally, going after individual infringers 5.) Linux on the desktop will take off real soon, promise
My biggest problem with Mac OS X is its complete lack of respect for standard *nix apps. In my experience, they usually don't com pile without a lot of work.
Look just below the "For example:" part of my post. See? As always, you aren't even paying attention, just shooting off your mouth without actually understanding what people are saying.
Okay, let's look:
You repeatedly accuse people of doing exactly what you are doing yourself. For example:
"All you've done, through your entire post, is attack me for having a different opinion."
Which is basically what you've done with my posts.
Oh? You didn't actually cite an example, you just requoted what I said and pretended that it was magically self-evident? Where is your example of where I ignored a point you raised and insulted you instead, which was what I was asking for?
Oh, right, you're just a troll.
No, they were pure opinion, and badly founded at that.
They were 100% fact, and you can't refute them. You have yet to, which means I dominated your position. Next.
Before you can get counter-arguments, you need to bring up some valid arguments of your own.
Thankfully, I did that long ago, unlike you. Your inability to address them means I completely dominated your position. Next.
No, I'm pointing out the fact that you told me that "all you have is anti-capitalist venom" because I disagreed with you.
It's true. You didn't address any of my points. All you did was go off on some anti-corporate rants. Therefore, all you have is anti-capitalist venom. Next time, actually address the topic of conversation, music piracy.
So I used the same method against you to teach you a lesson. I called you a fascist to give you a taste of your own medicine.
But what you really ended up doing was revealing how ineffective you are at rational thought and debate. It was the same method you use in your anti-capitalist rants to avoid talking about the points I raised regarding ripping artists off. Go back and read your posts; it's all there. Next.
Before you can wipe the floor with someone else, you should at least try not to make a complete fool of yourself by not actually understanding what they are saying, and by not being the pot calling the kettle black...
Notice you STILL didn't address any of my points about music piracy. You have nothing to offer. Get back to me when you step foot outside the dorm-room and do a little research on how the real world works. Then maybe, just maybe, you might start talking about music piracy again instead of obsessing over me.
Microsoft has no problem supporting OpenDocument, they just don't want to be limited by it, because OpenDocument will not go far enough for to establish standards for common things stored in documents today.
Oh, for Christ's sake. Microsoft doesn't support OpenDocument, because it threatens reliance on the Office file format. OpenDocument is actually a superior format to Office. Heck, Office will never support XForms.
Microsoft is basically saying, ok if you want to standardize, the freaking do it all the way.
No, they're saying, "standardize on Office so our platform is maintained." You are such a shill.
Don't let the users lose INK, Sound, and other things that are stored in the document in a non-standard format. They are saying these concepts should be standardized further, so that a Document that has INK or more advanced Media stored in it, that it still should be open to be opened on more than just the application that created it and packaged up the extra pieces that there is no standard for and other programs won't be able to disply, hear, or reproduce.
OpenDocument can support any piece of media.
Microsoft's top people screw up the terminology a bit, but go read what Microsoft really wants when it comes to a standard Document format.
What Microsoft wants is for people to have to rely on Office because their documents are stored in a non-open, proprietary format.
Bascially if OpenDocument did ENOUGH to support even the silly crap that can be stored in a 8yr old MS Word or WordPerfect Document, it would be a hell of a lot better than what it is now, since it doesn't provide enough standards to even do that properly. So how can you base an industry standard on this type of Docuemnt format?
Except that OpenDocument does support everything in a Word/WordPerfect document. You're just shilling for Microsoft here, desperate for everyone to adopt Office and XAML formats to tie people to the Microsoft platform despite superior, open alternatives like OpenDocument.
Thankfully, OpenDocument is taking off, and Microsoft will lose this battle.
Ok, when you get done oohing and ahhing OSX and its PDF and Quartz, maybe you might want to actually read about the WPF and XAML.
I already have, kid.
Since Postscript is a 1980s technology, I hope you surely wasn't meaning that as a compliment to OSX and its PDF usage.
The age of a technology has nothing to do with its validity. Are you seriously suggesting we all dismiss something merely because its a "1980s technology?" I hate to break it to you, but so is Windows. This kind of uneducated statement could only spawn from someone who's listened to Microsoft marketing materials.
Vector to Raster operations of a 3D space are really not even a part of the PDF/Postscript foundations in OSX. To get to real 3D Space in Quartz you drop to OpenGL. (Should I quote Apple on this for you, or do you know enough about Quartz?)
Yes, Quartz lets you move to a real 3D API and not a bloated XML layer to Direct3D. What's your point? Maybe you haven't followed the discussions online about it, or the links I gave earlier, but Avalon is a catch-up technology to what Quartz has been doing for half a decade now. Maybe you're excited about all this stuff because you never looked at OS X before now, but this is nothing new.
As for Avalon, it is like taking what Apple did with the PDF/Adobe style screen rendering and printing and jumping ahead 10years.
After you get done hyperventilating, get back to me.
Quartz can be used to display great Vector and 3D graphics on the screen but aren't designed to work in the same context well together or be the actually framework of an application UI. It is there to display pictures and render images for applications, not to actually MAKE the UI of the application.
Actually claiming that Quartz isn't designed to be the framework of an application UI is completely bizarre and misinformed, given that, you know, all of OS X uses it. CoreGraphics is responsible for the "making" of the UI controls through vector operations. Later in your post, you claim Quartz doesn't natively support vectors, another bizarre assertation.
Additionally, the graphical support level between Quartz and Avalon are quite a few years apart. From the simple 3D UI design model for Avalon, i.e. every button has light source, depth, etc. In OSX, even the 'pretty things' are raster images.
Aqua is a very nice blend of vector/raster to allow for performance on older machines. I can't think of anything more wasteful than light sources and depth on 2D interface objects. Besides that, you can do all of that on OS X. You apparently believe because XAML is this crappy XML layer on top of Direct3D, that magically makes it superior in some way.
In Avalon they are Vector images that have full preservation all the way to the screen, and aren't lost in rastering like in OSX.
Again, Quartz already does full vector-based imaging. Many of Aqua's rendered controls are raster images for performance reasons, but you can resize the interface in OS X Tiger using the included developer tools, and the images will resize with them. Quartz already fully supports the ability to create resolutionj-independent vector-based controls. I don't know if you've done the "killall" trick on a window that's in the middle of the genie animation, but the controls actually continue to function in their warped state, registering clicks correctly because of the vector-based nature of Quartz.
For example, in Avalon you can truly zoom the screen to any resolution, and the UI can stay the same size in, and if Microsoft wants to do cute animations like the Genie Effect, it isn't a blocky raster image of the application, it would be a vector representation of the applicaiton, and not get blocky.
Quartz already supports this, and developers can enable it in Quartz Debugger to make sure their apps run correctly in resolution-independence (no doubt in preperation for OS X Leopard). Apple chose not to create everything
It's quite amazing to see you make a complete ass of yourself:)
Ah, this ol' tactic. "I don't have any counterarguments, so I'll pretend I'm amused at you. Point for me!"
You start off with straw man arguments about "stolen GPL code", which I've never even mentioned in any of my posts.
The ol' "I don't have any counterarguments, so I'll accuse you of 'straw man arguments.'" I never said you mentioned GPL code in your posts. It was a point about the moral relativism of Slashdot.
You clearly demonstrate a lack of ability to understand that all these people posting on Slashdot are, in fact, different individuals with different opinions.
You continue your obsession with avoiding the idea of Slashdot groupthink, which exists based on upmodded posts and the articles that get published to the front page.
Just because another guy you've blown up in anger over has talked about "stolen GPL code" doesn't mean that anyone who opposes your nonsensical, fascist drivel does the same thing.
I haven't "blown up in anger" over anything; on the contrary, I've been laughing at both of you and your ridiculously weak positions. You can't debate a single point about music piracy without spiraling into attacking me. You seem think if you call my arguments enough names, they'll magically go away. "Fascist drivel! Yeah, it's fascist drivel! I've never known fascism in my life, but I'll accuse you of it because you dare suggest not ripping artists off!"
You repeatedly accuse people of doing exactly what you are doing yourself.
You've done nothing but call me fascist, call me thick, and call me various other things. You can't debate any actual point. You know, those things we call facts and evidence. You have none, so you think repeating over and over "You do what you accuse others of doing!" actually means anything. Of course, it doesn't, but I guess you need that to retreat to in every post to avoid addressing anything.
You are obviously a bit thick, because you still don't understand why I called you a fascist.
You called me a fascist because you're some dorm-room kid who doesn't know what fascism actually is. You probably also call people you disagree with "Nazis."
Funny. You're doing exactly what you accused me of doing--calling those you disagree with names.
It's simply because you started throwing around claims and accusations about me when I countered your drivel.
But you didn't counter anything. Re-read your own posts. All you did was attack me. You have completely avoided any and all addressing of my points. I can only assume you lack the ability to debate one.
But when I did the exact same thing to you, you started weeping like a crybaby and running around in circles because you can't take it when people use the same kind of arguments against you that you always use against other people.
Again, because you disagree with me and can't explain to me why, you call me more names and non-specifically accuse me of "running around in circles." Notice what's missing? Any attempt at debating the points of discussion. Instead, we get more name-calling. Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about and so are trying incredibly hard to make my points go away by calling me names, and then accusing me of such.
Get back to me when you actually decide to start talking about music piracy and the points I raised.
What's so hilarious is that you are all over me now for turning your own methods in discussions against yourself. And when you are on the receiving end of the kind of behavior you show all the time, you get all worked up and heartbroken.
And now I'm "heartbroken!" Hysterical. You're the one running in circles here, retreading the same accusations over and over, avoiding discussing any of my points about music piracy.
I have an idea, cite an actual example where I used these "methods of discussion."
OMG, you completely twist everything, avoid answering and accuse other people of your mistakes!
This is your only retort, over and over. "OMG, d00d, you avoid answering when I haven't answered a thing!" Again, you ignore all the points I made earlier in the conversation and continue the obsession with me. Do you have anything at all to say about music piracy?
When does that happen? Stop talking BS! If it doesn't happen, it doesn't matter.
It happens all the time. Apparently, you've decided to pretend it doesn't to coincide with your worldview. Amusing.
There you go, you yourself just proved that its no big deal.
It is a big deal. You want to pretend ripping someone off isn't a big deal, but hey, thanks for admitting you're 100% anti-artist. Again, do you think John Carmack would appreciate all his years of work into Doom 3 going unpaid? Be sure to avoid this point again.
We have more importan things to worry about, then something that just means that corporations get less profit.
Thanks for illustrating my point--again--that you're obsessed with corporations. I mention the artists you're directly ripping off, and you purposely throw that out and mention "corporations" again.
I couldn't care less if universal makes less money. As long as indie artists don't get hurt (you yourself said that you can't fin their music on P2P - So how do they get hurt? Figures? Evidence? Stop avoiding the answer!).
I didn't say 100% of all independent artists in the world couldn't be found on P2P, but you need to pretend I said that to have something to attack and accuse me of "avoiding" when I'm not. Do you think The Bad Plus likes it that their album "Give" is available on eMule when they're a struggling indie jazz group? Be sure to avoid talking about the artists and go rattling on about unnamed "corporations" again.
Your view on GPL is worth a cow's ass.
I guess you believe if you repeat it enough times without explaining why, it magically becomes true.
This has nothing to do about thinking by yourself. The purpose of the GPL is a workaround against copyright. If it didn't exist, there would be no need for the GPL. If you don't believe me check the Free software foundation's page.
The GPL relies 100% on copyright to exist. Companies that violate the copyright of the GPL by not distributing code changes get blasted on Slashdot for "stealing GPL code." You want to pretend Slashdot doesn't do this when it happens all the time, which just means I'm right again.
Well, this sort of logic might cut it when your in 8th grade
Yes, you do have to have passed 8th grade to understand that kind of logical thinking, I suppose.
, but not in the real world. There is a thing called opportunity cost that means that if people had to pay for certain things, they would simply not buy these things! How does that fit into your little world?
Haha, you must've Google for some random economic term to throw out in an attempt to appear to be debating me. Opportunity cost doesn't mean that at all. Opportunity cost is the consideration of what other thing you might have purchased had you not purchased something else.
You can't handle this basic math. It's amazing. You are thrashing, struggling, desperate to avoid admitting this incredibly basic, simple fact:
Paying for music = money goes to artist Not paying for music = no money paid to artist
This thing is self-evident. You can't argue it because it's basic math. If you don't pay someone, they don't get paid. Repeat it until you start to accept it, because apparently it's a great barrier in your mind to recognizing that when you rip off an artist's music that they put out for sale, they don't get paid for it. I guess you think money is magically going to appear in their pockets, but it doesn't. Sorry, kid, that's not how things work outside of the dorm-room.
There's no point in responding to it, because it doesn't apply to me.
Translation: "I can't think of anything to counter your argument, so I'll pretend it's valid to say it doesn't apply to me and stick my fingers in my ears and close my eyes."
"Slashdot" is a community with lots of different people with different opinions. I know that's hard for you to accept, but it's a fact.
I know it's extremely difficult for you to accept the fact that the vast majority of Slashdot refers to "stolen GPL code," that these are the comments that get modded up, and that these are the stories that get posted. Look up the definition of groupthink sometime.
No, your opinions are based on your eagerness to be "special" and stand out by attacking anyone who has a different opinion.
Meanwhile, you still have not address a single one of my points. All you've done is resort to meaningless psycho-analysis to avoid the fact you have no counterargument, which has made me laugh every time you do it. Thanks.
Before you ask for arguments from others, provide some yourself. All you have posted so far is pure opinion, and misguided at that.
I've already proven my points. You have yet to counter them. Your mantra seems to be, "I'll just repeat over and over that you're misguided, and it will magically become true someday!"
The only thing you have zeroed in on is your own lies and deception. Your entire world view is based on useless generalizations and an inability to accept the fact that different people have different opinions. If someone doesn't share your opinion, then they are part of some Slashdot conspiracy in your world.
My world view is based on simple common sense and logic. Your head is in the clouds, unable to address a single one of my points. You're not even talking about the topic anymore, you're talking about me. I said nothing about a "Slashdot conspiracy;" you just invented that to have something to attack since you have nothing else to say on the topic at hand, music piracy.
You aren't standing up for anyone's rights.
I'm standing up for individual's rights, the right of an artist. You're standing up for the collective majority of dorm-room freeloaders who are too cheap to pay a dollar for a song and think that gives them the magic right to rip people off. Would John Carmack agree that piracy of Doom 3 is okay?
You are merely being an asshole on Slashdot because you get picked on in real life
More meaningless psycho-analysis to avoid addressing the topic at hand. The ol' "You're just picked on in real life, take that!" routine. Thanks for the laugh, kid.
, and therefore you feel the need to post under the cover of anonymity on Slashdot, and you feel safe spreading lies and attacking anyone who dares to have a different opinion from yours.
No, it's just that you're clearly frustrated at your inability to address a single one of my points, so you have to try to distract and "figure me out" to dismiss my points and avoid talking about the subject, music piracy. All you've done is talk about me.
So, how does it feel to be on the receiving end of the kind of arguments you use against other people?
Still waiting for a single retort to any of the points I made. Oh, more desperate distractions and non-specific accusations? What a surprise.
On the contrary. I have simply exposed you as what you really are.
You, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman, and I salute you. I fear your outing skills.
Actually, you are just whoring whatever is necessary at the moment to be opposed to everyone else.
No, but you need to accuse me of such so you can avoid talking about music piracy, of which you clearly know nothing about.
Tomorrow you'll be attacking artists because someone posts a Slashdot story which might be about how the recording industry exploits artists.
You still didn't answer any of my questions! Stop posting pointless personal attacks and avoiding the question!
You didn't ask any questions. All you did was avoid every single point I made.
* You still didn't prove how downloading a file of P2P results in a loss for the indie music artist
It's this magical thing called "math."
Paying for an album = money paid to artist Not paying for an album = money not paid to artist
* You still haven't named any artists that are starving due to piracy. I'll even let you name top40 artists
Nobody is "starving" from piracy, and that has nothing to do with anything. You don't have the right to rip someone off and violate their rights as a copyright holder (or else we can kiss the GPL goodbye, since it relies on copyright to protect code).
* You still haven't addressed the issue that iTunes doesn't work with everything or on everything
This sure was left-field. What does iTunes' supported formats have to do with anything whatsoever? Besides the fact it supports WAV, AIFF, MP3, AAC, Protected AAC, AU, and Apple Lossless, the formats iTunes supports doesn't have anything to do with people ripping off other human beings.
* You seem to ignore the fact that non-top40 artists get revenue differently from top40 artists
You just pulled this out of your ass. You don't even know what you're trying to say here. "Get revenue differently?" What the heck does that have to do with anything?
* You fail to address you contradication about piracy hurting the small artist, but P2P being full of top40 stuff
Because when indie artists end up on P2P, it's worst of all because these are the artists trying to get started in their careers and make it, and need support the most.
* Your views on the nature of GPL are false, talk to RMS about it. He would know best.
I love it. You have no thought of your own, so you tell me to go to the fanatical RMS. How about thinking on your own for a change and responding yourself? My view that the GPL relies on copyright is 100% correct in every way.
* Cartels don't exists right?
No, I never said that anywhere at all. You just needed something to attack and so made it up.
Completely lame, man. What a waste of my time. Next.
Metro is an extention of how elegant the new 3D Vector system built in Windows is - and also how different it is from anything Apple or anyone else has even attempted to do. Bascially when new applications for Windows are rendering cool graphics on the screen or printer, they are using XML in the from of XAML - which looks a lot like SVG, but has a 'chunk' of different abilities and purposes than SVG does. So Metro is basically just saying, ok instead of drawing this to the screen, save it in a Document, a Metro Document
So after you get done hyperventilating over this super-exciting "new" Microsoft innovation, why don't you read up on OS X and what it has done with PDF for the past five years? Quartz, also vector-based, is built on the PDF object graph, which is itself a subset of Postscript, and has allowed applications to save their contents to a PDF for years. It's one of the reasons OS X is so great with desktop publishing--what you see really is exactly what you'll get, down to the typography spacing, because the same graphics operations drawing the screen are also what get sent to the printer and what get saved to PDF.
Because anything cross-platform threatens reliance on the Windows platform. Microsoft is trying to position Avalon and XAML as mediums for delivering applications through the web, tying into Windows APIs but going through the browser. If they succeed this, they control the web as a platform too.
You seem to be an expert at throwing around straw man arguments. I've never referred to it as "stolen code"
Ah, the Slashdot tactic. Refer to everything as a "straw man" because you can't respond to it. Give me a break, Slashdot constantly refers to "stolen GPL code."
You made a claim that it is a big deal to everyone without backing it up. You were stating an opinion. I gave you my opinion/view on the subject. Get over it. I know that you find it hard to accept the fact that different people have different opinions, but at least try!
The problem is, my "opinions" are based on hard facts, common sense, and actual evidence. All pro-pirates have is emotion-based rhetoric and "The RIAA made me do it!"
"I say it's bogus because I just proved why it's bogus--esoteric music is rarely traded, if at all, on P2P."
Wrong.
ROFL. That's it? A one-word answer with no supporting evidence? Try finding the Lascivious Biddies on eMule. Or the live Bad Plus album. Nope, what you find on P2P networks is that, overwhelmingly, the most available groups are....the popular groups! Britney Spears, Madonna, the Beatles, Nickelback, etc. You won't find Manburger, Happy Apple, and so on.
P2P networks are not used to trade esoteric music and enrich people's musical landscapes. They're used to trade stuff on MTV and the radio so people don't have to pay for them. Purely selfish reasons.
There's nothing to counter. You are stating your opinion. But you can't handle it when my opinion is not the same as yours.
Ah, the "you can't handle my differing opinion" copout. Just admit you have no counterargument and move on.
You don't know anything about me, and yet you are making comments about what you think I'm like or what you think I've done. Again, Slashdot is an online community with thousands of different individuals. I can understand that you can only think of people as belonging to your stereotypes, but I'm afraid that simply is not the case.
Look, kid, it's obvious you've never spoken to any artist or asked them what they think. You just assumed, and I caught you on it, or else you'd have countered my point. Your mindset is completely transparent, and it clearly frustrates you that I so easily zeroed in on your worldview.
You post a lot of drivel on Slashdot, so surely you have caught the stories on these studies? If not, I suggest that you pay more attention to arguments for opposing views instead of acting like your opinion is the only one that counts.
Correlation does not equal causation. I know you probably form your worldview based entirely on Slashdot headlines, but believe it or not, there are studies that contradict your premise, and there are opinions that exist outside the humid Slashdot echo chamber.
I think it's pretty clear that your anti-individual rights agenda is pretty much decimated by simple logic.
Amazingly, I'm the one standing up for the rights of individual artists, while you are eager to rip them off. I think it's obvious who has the anti-individual agenda here.
Your attitude towards individual rights ("destroy them, who needs them anyway?") is simply indefensible, yet you continue to try and defend it.
Your only counterargument is to completely invent something I never said, and attack that. Your weak position has painted you into a corner. Knowing that I'm the one standing up for the rights of individual artists, you have no choice but to attempt to stereotype me and dismiss my opinion, instead of directly addressing all the points I made. Cute, but sad.
I'm not preventing anyone from getting paid. On the contrary.
Here's this magic thing called math:
Someone pays for album = artist gets paid for album Someone rips off album without paying for it = artist doesn't get paid for album
I'll let you work it out in the dorm room.
That's harsh, coming from a guy who thinks everyone on Slashdo
The reason why I said that is because you repeat the same thing over and over again. I've seen enough of your rhetoric to have some idea of your standard methods of offence. I've seen ppl counter you, but it only works for one particular story in question. Basically, you repeat the same thing over and again and again even if people have argued with you. Plus I have a suspicion that you use several accounts. Why would you have several accounts if all you points are so superior and meaningful. Last resort my ass, if that would be my motivation then I would have trolled you and wouldn't be writing this post.
Oh, please, stop with the "multiple accounts" BS. I repeat the same thing over and over because pro-pirate also repeat the same things over and over--"The RIAA made me do it!" It's stupid. Take some responsibility.
Why am I obsessed with corporations?
Because you're one of those college dorm-room anti-capitalist types who think they're enlightened because they're against "greedy" corporations?
Umm, because their activity are making feel that allowing incorporation isn't really benefiting society. Very real human beings? Now you are using rhetoric, you know, proving your point by making some sort of symbolic hard working human beings.
Uh, artists aren't "symbolic hard working human beings." They're real human beings, who often pay for studios and equipment out of their own pocket and spend months of their lives to record an album only to have freeloaders who don't want to pay for it try to justify it with anti-capitalism rhetoric.
But thanks for admitting you don't think about the artist at all.
If you don't like hearing rhetoric, don't use it yourself. The last sentence in your quote is full of BS? Don't get paid? What do you mean? A download over P2P doesn't mean a lost sale for the artist.
Holy crap. Is this the illogic that has now permeated Slashdot? Not paying for something magically doesn't equal a lost sale? "What do you mean?" Here's how it works, kid:
Someone pays money for album = money gets paid to artist Someone doesn't pay money for album = money doesn't get paid to artist
I'll let you study it in the dorm room tonight.
Human or not human (drop the "appeal to common man" diction), a loss only happens when an additional cost is incurred. This isn't really true for P2P. How can you prove that I would buy a particular song if wasn't able to pirate it?
It doesn't matter (I'll ignore your pathetic "prove a negative" argument, the true sign of a weak position). You don't have the right to rip someone off and violate their rights as a creator of a work.
And since you can't do that, there is no loss.
You are trying so desperately hard to justify piracy. It's incredible and amusing. I wish you could see yourself objectively. "You can't prove I wouldn't buy something if I didn't pirate, therefore it means there's no loss! you fell into my logic trap!!!"
Why do you think microsoft keeps its OS crackable? Because, if it wasn't, it would lose the whole of the 3rd-world market in a few months.
What in the hell does this have to do with anything? Ever heard of activiation? WGA?
Back to the corporation bit, anti-RIAAers (btw, when I say RIAA I mean content cartels etc)
"Content cartels," ROFL. More emotion-based rhetoric.
often make reference to corporations because they are what harm the consumer. Small bands and who want to make a living don't get harmed by piracy that much.
Yes, they absolutely do, and it's sickening you'd assume this for them. You haven't asked A SINGLE ARTIST. YOU DON'T KNOW ANY. YOU'RE JUST PULLING THIS OUT OF YOUR ASS ON THE SPOT.
An independent artist is trying hardest of all to make a living. But hey, go ahead and rip off these flesh-and-blood beings. Fuck 'em and their rights. Heaven forbid you pay nine bucks (the cost of a lunch for two in some restaurants,
But you're stating it as if it's a matter of fact--"People who download music also buy music." You haven't proven it, and it doesn't matter anyway. Someone who rips off someone else isn't a customer.
I wouldn't worry. iPod nanos are going to sell like hookers this Christmas. This is a lot of public snorting from a few labels that won't go anywhere, because Apple has the upper hand--they're the #1 music store and are surpassing even P2P networks in usage. Steve Jobs doesn't give a shit if Warner pulls out. Without Warner music on iTunes, iPods are still just gonna keep on sellin' while Warner loses cash to non-sales and piracy, especially when video-enabled iPods come out.
This is just the game they play. Higher prices than.99 per song ain't gonna happen on Jobs' watch. Apple did focus studies that determined.99 was the sweet spot.
You can't write off study after study by saying "correlation does not imply causation."
Yes, you can. If you're going to cite all the studies to back a flawed premise, they can all be written off. Correlation does not imply causation is a basic logical tenet to avoid chasing false conclusions that aren't true.
You just want to believe that the studies support your pre-made conclusion. That is why avoiding such logical fallacies is so important, and why "correlation does not imply causation" is a completely valid response.
The fact remains that it's pointless anyway, as the copyright holders are getting ripped off and have the right to determine how their materials are distributed, not some Slashdotter with a DSL line trying desperately to justify ripping off music, game, and movie companies. Ask Slashdot geek hero John Carmack sometime how he feels about people pirating Doom 3. Think he'll agree with your side? He worked for years on that game, but people don't compensate him for it. Such reasons are why companies are flocking to consoles, where it's more difficult to pirate, and why the PC game industry is in decline.
These are the consequences pirates never think of. It's like when people throw a piece of trash out the window on a highway. "One piece of trash won't hurt." "Someone else will clean it up." Multiply that person by hundreds of thousands, and the results are disastrous.
Slashdot Mirror
And the overly naive guy loses yet another discussion because he is unable to present any rational arguments for his position. All he is able to do is to present his opinion as fact, and then attack people who don't agree.
And here you are doing the same! Do you have anything to say about music piracy? No? Didn't think so.
I already presented my rational arguments. You haven't addressed a single one of them. You haven't quoted anything and then responded to it. You haven't offered a counterpoint.
Oh, let's see! Calling me anti-capitalist because I disagreed with you, for one.
No, I said all you have is anti-capitalist rhetoric. See, kid, this goes back to the whole "not responding to my arguments" thing. You didn't and instead just rattled on about corporations instead of responding to my points about piracy and ripping artists off.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your crusade against common decency and rational debate.
You're right, I should follow your model of attacking the other person because you lack the ability to debate the issue.
This is not the first time you've made a complete fool of yourself. Your posting history and general reputation on Slashdot speaks for itself.
Ooh! The ol' "I will dismiss you based on an imaginary reputation I've invented for you to hide the fact I'm running screaming from the topic at hand--music piracy" routine.
Get back to me when you do a little research and can actually speak on the topic of music piracy. Next.
It's because it's Google, it's about an office suite alternative to Office, and it's about AJAX. The fact there is no tangible evidence for anything doesn't matter; these three ingredients thrown together in random increments get page hits on Slashdot.
Think about it, this entire article is really just the question in the headline. "Is there a Google Office in the works?" Well, uh, how should we know? What's the discussion going to be about? "Gee, I hope so." "Yeah. Go Google." "Yeah."
I've been visiting Digg more and more, where the news there is actually worthwhile (and it's updated way more often than this site!).
It goes both ways. When CD sales are down, people here argue that piracy has no correlation with it, and it's the music industry's fault for putting out bad music. When CD sales are up (as they were in Australia in one particular Slashdot article), people said piracy does has a correlation and boosted sales. Either piracy affects sales or it doesn't!
Well, I agree, and Jobs will probably have the upper hand in keeping prices reasonable given Apple's recent nano success.
I'm not justifying their pricing. If you think they're too expensive, don't buy 'em. But that's not a right to pirate, either.
1) Most musicians don't do very well at all in their dealings with record companies. In general, under the current regime, the money doesn't go to the artists.
It does, but this is an issue between the artist and the record labels. Those contracts are willingly signed, and it varies between record labels. Nobody's holding a gun to people's heads to sign up with record labels, but they seem to keep doing it.
2) File sharing isn't damaging the record companies. This fact is also borne out by the record profits record companies are now reporting, despite the fact that file sharing has increased substantially over the last couple of years, and the fact that record companies are actually releasing fewer records.
CD sales are down. It doesn't matter if you believe file-sharing is damaging record companies. It's their intellectual property.
Should we believe it's okay to not compensate John Carmack for his years of work on Doom 3 because he's rich enough to drive a Ferrari and id made millions off the game?
3) Record companies could be making use of file sharing as part of major new business models.
iTunes is the #1 online music store. The "obsolete business model" argument is, well, obsolete.
The biggest problem, though, is that most heads of record companies are out-of-touch old men who not only don't have a clue about the technology, but they barely have a clue about music in the first place.
Agreed, but that doesn't justify not paying artists for their work. People on Slashdot like to disregard artists in the equation and often don't mention them at all. It's all about the RIAA, corporations, greedy crime syndicates, etc. Nobody wants to talk about the human beings who shelled out time and money in a studio for three months to put out the music they hoped people would buy so they could make a living. Touring is expensive and is usually done to promote an album release.
So what you read here is "RIAA, RIAA, RIAA" with no mention of the artists at all who are singing and playing on the record.
Welcome to the truth. The vast majority of P2P traffic is illegal piracy, nothing more. Some people are using this as veiled attempt to legally defend piracy. "Sure, we're ripping people off, but they're ORGANIZED CRIME SYNDICATES! Here's a shiny sign that says so, look at this, over here! Don't think about the issues of piracy or the artists not getting paid. Just distract yourself with the pretty, emotional sign!"
Your Rights Online: Another Victim Countersues RIAA Under RICO Act
Okay, right from the start, the headline is an editorial via the use of the term "victim."
from the racketeer-influenced-and-corrupt-organizations dept.
This is rather self-explanatory. Despite Slashdot calling for the RIAA to go after individual infringers back during the Napster lawsuit, Slashdot has done a 180 and is against that now, using anti-capitalist rhetoric to avoid discussing the issues of music piracy. You scapegoat "greedy corporations" with non-specific accusations in order to distract from discussing the artists not getting paid.
devnulljapan is one of many users to let us know that another single mother is taking the fight to the RIAA. More than just standing up to them however, Tanya Anderson has decided to go on the offensive and countersue.
Okay, this is reasonably neutral, although the "standing up to them" phrase is questionable. The RIAA did what it is legally entitled to do; go after infringers of its copyright that it found on the P2P networks. Again, CmdrTaco and company were supporting this idea back in 2000.
In a move that aims to put the RIAA on the same level as your average organized crime syndicate the suit identifies violations of the Oregon RICO Act in addition to 'fraud, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, electronic trespass, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent misrepresentation, the tort of "outrage", and deceptive business practices.' Ms. Anderson has also demanded a trial by jury.
This is the kicker. "Average organized crime syndicate" is so blatantly over the top that the obvious intent is to stir the hornet's next of pro-piracy advocates on Slashdot (which has become P2P piracy central in the past couple of years) to generate page hits.
These kinds of skewed posts, with obvious propaganda and rhetoric, are what paints Slashdot in a poor light and keeps it from being taken seriously as more than a niche geek site with very rigid agendas and a strict groupthink policy, which goes like this:
1.) Everything Google does is newsworthy and good
2.) Everything Microsoft does is newsworthy but bad
3.) Any attempt by the RIAA in any way, shape, or form to protect its copyright is an infringement on the natural rights given by the Creator of a person to pirate stuff without having to pay for it
4.) Violating the copyright of the GPL is "stolen code" that the EFF should pursue legally, going after individual infringers
5.) Linux on the desktop will take off real soon, promise
My biggest problem with Mac OS X is its complete lack of respect for standard *nix apps. In my experience, they usually don't com pile without a lot of work.
DarwinPorts
Okay, let's look:
Oh? You didn't actually cite an example, you just requoted what I said and pretended that it was magically self-evident? Where is your example of where I ignored a point you raised and insulted you instead, which was what I was asking for?
Oh, right, you're just a troll.
No, they were pure opinion, and badly founded at that.
They were 100% fact, and you can't refute them. You have yet to, which means I dominated your position. Next.
Before you can get counter-arguments, you need to bring up some valid arguments of your own.
Thankfully, I did that long ago, unlike you. Your inability to address them means I completely dominated your position. Next.
No, I'm pointing out the fact that you told me that "all you have is anti-capitalist venom" because I disagreed with you.
It's true. You didn't address any of my points. All you did was go off on some anti-corporate rants. Therefore, all you have is anti-capitalist venom. Next time, actually address the topic of conversation, music piracy.
So I used the same method against you to teach you a lesson. I called you a fascist to give you a taste of your own medicine.
But what you really ended up doing was revealing how ineffective you are at rational thought and debate. It was the same method you use in your anti-capitalist rants to avoid talking about the points I raised regarding ripping artists off. Go back and read your posts; it's all there. Next.
Before you can wipe the floor with someone else, you should at least try not to make a complete fool of yourself by not actually understanding what they are saying, and by not being the pot calling the kettle black...
Notice you STILL didn't address any of my points about music piracy. You have nothing to offer. Get back to me when you step foot outside the dorm-room and do a little research on how the real world works. Then maybe, just maybe, you might start talking about music piracy again instead of obsessing over me.
Next.
Microsoft has no problem supporting OpenDocument, they just don't want to be limited by it, because OpenDocument will not go far enough for to establish standards for common things stored in documents today.
Oh, for Christ's sake. Microsoft doesn't support OpenDocument, because it threatens reliance on the Office file format. OpenDocument is actually a superior format to Office. Heck, Office will never support XForms.
Microsoft is basically saying, ok if you want to standardize, the freaking do it all the way.
No, they're saying, "standardize on Office so our platform is maintained." You are such a shill.
Don't let the users lose INK, Sound, and other things that are stored in the document in a non-standard format. They are saying these concepts should be standardized further, so that a Document that has INK or more advanced Media stored in it, that it still should be open to be opened on more than just the application that created it and packaged up the extra pieces that there is no standard for and other programs won't be able to disply, hear, or reproduce.
OpenDocument can support any piece of media.
Microsoft's top people screw up the terminology a bit, but go read what Microsoft really wants when it comes to a standard Document format.
What Microsoft wants is for people to have to rely on Office because their documents are stored in a non-open, proprietary format.
Bascially if OpenDocument did ENOUGH to support even the silly crap that can be stored in a 8yr old MS Word or WordPerfect Document, it would be a hell of a lot better than what it is now, since it doesn't provide enough standards to even do that properly. So how can you base an industry standard on this type of Docuemnt format?
Except that OpenDocument does support everything in a Word/WordPerfect document. You're just shilling for Microsoft here, desperate for everyone to adopt Office and XAML formats to tie people to the Microsoft platform despite superior, open alternatives like OpenDocument.
Thankfully, OpenDocument is taking off, and Microsoft will lose this battle.
Ok, when you get done oohing and ahhing OSX and its PDF and Quartz, maybe you might want to actually read about the WPF and XAML.
I already have, kid.
Since Postscript is a 1980s technology, I hope you surely wasn't meaning that as a compliment to OSX and its PDF usage.
The age of a technology has nothing to do with its validity. Are you seriously suggesting we all dismiss something merely because its a "1980s technology?" I hate to break it to you, but so is Windows. This kind of uneducated statement could only spawn from someone who's listened to Microsoft marketing materials.
Vector to Raster operations of a 3D space are really not even a part of the PDF/Postscript foundations in OSX. To get to real 3D Space in Quartz you drop to OpenGL. (Should I quote Apple on this for you, or do you know enough about Quartz?)
Yes, Quartz lets you move to a real 3D API and not a bloated XML layer to Direct3D. What's your point? Maybe you haven't followed the discussions online about it, or the links I gave earlier, but Avalon is a catch-up technology to what Quartz has been doing for half a decade now. Maybe you're excited about all this stuff because you never looked at OS X before now, but this is nothing new.
As for Avalon, it is like taking what Apple did with the PDF/Adobe style screen rendering and printing and jumping ahead 10years.
After you get done hyperventilating, get back to me.
Quartz can be used to display great Vector and 3D graphics on the screen but aren't designed to work in the same context well together or be the actually framework of an application UI. It is there to display pictures and render images for applications, not to actually MAKE the UI of the application.
Actually claiming that Quartz isn't designed to be the framework of an application UI is completely bizarre and misinformed, given that, you know, all of OS X uses it. CoreGraphics is responsible for the "making" of the UI controls through vector operations. Later in your post, you claim Quartz doesn't natively support vectors, another bizarre assertation.
Additionally, the graphical support level between Quartz and Avalon are quite a few years apart. From the simple 3D UI design model for Avalon, i.e. every button has light source, depth, etc. In OSX, even the 'pretty things' are raster images.
Aqua is a very nice blend of vector/raster to allow for performance on older machines. I can't think of anything more wasteful than light sources and depth on 2D interface objects. Besides that, you can do all of that on OS X. You apparently believe because XAML is this crappy XML layer on top of Direct3D, that magically makes it superior in some way.
In Avalon they are Vector images that have full preservation all the way to the screen, and aren't lost in rastering like in OSX.
Again, Quartz already does full vector-based imaging. Many of Aqua's rendered controls are raster images for performance reasons, but you can resize the interface in OS X Tiger using the included developer tools, and the images will resize with them. Quartz already fully supports the ability to create resolutionj-independent vector-based controls. I don't know if you've done the "killall" trick on a window that's in the middle of the genie animation, but the controls actually continue to function in their warped state, registering clicks correctly because of the vector-based nature of Quartz.
For example, in Avalon you can truly zoom the screen to any resolution, and the UI can stay the same size in, and if Microsoft wants to do cute animations like the Genie Effect, it isn't a blocky raster image of the application, it would be a vector representation of the applicaiton, and not get blocky.
Quartz already supports this, and developers can enable it in Quartz Debugger to make sure their apps run correctly in resolution-independence (no doubt in preperation for OS X Leopard). Apple chose not to create everything
It's quite amazing to see you make a complete ass of yourself :)
Ah, this ol' tactic. "I don't have any counterarguments, so I'll pretend I'm amused at you. Point for me!"
You start off with straw man arguments about "stolen GPL code", which I've never even mentioned in any of my posts.
The ol' "I don't have any counterarguments, so I'll accuse you of 'straw man arguments.'" I never said you mentioned GPL code in your posts. It was a point about the moral relativism of Slashdot.
You clearly demonstrate a lack of ability to understand that all these people posting on Slashdot are, in fact, different individuals with different opinions.
You continue your obsession with avoiding the idea of Slashdot groupthink, which exists based on upmodded posts and the articles that get published to the front page.
Just because another guy you've blown up in anger over has talked about "stolen GPL code" doesn't mean that anyone who opposes your nonsensical, fascist drivel does the same thing.
I haven't "blown up in anger" over anything; on the contrary, I've been laughing at both of you and your ridiculously weak positions. You can't debate a single point about music piracy without spiraling into attacking me. You seem think if you call my arguments enough names, they'll magically go away. "Fascist drivel! Yeah, it's fascist drivel! I've never known fascism in my life, but I'll accuse you of it because you dare suggest not ripping artists off!"
You repeatedly accuse people of doing exactly what you are doing yourself.
You've done nothing but call me fascist, call me thick, and call me various other things. You can't debate any actual point. You know, those things we call facts and evidence. You have none, so you think repeating over and over "You do what you accuse others of doing!" actually means anything. Of course, it doesn't, but I guess you need that to retreat to in every post to avoid addressing anything.
You are obviously a bit thick, because you still don't understand why I called you a fascist.
You called me a fascist because you're some dorm-room kid who doesn't know what fascism actually is. You probably also call people you disagree with "Nazis."
Funny. You're doing exactly what you accused me of doing--calling those you disagree with names.
It's simply because you started throwing around claims and accusations about me when I countered your drivel.
But you didn't counter anything. Re-read your own posts. All you did was attack me. You have completely avoided any and all addressing of my points. I can only assume you lack the ability to debate one.
But when I did the exact same thing to you, you started weeping like a crybaby and running around in circles because you can't take it when people use the same kind of arguments against you that you always use against other people.
Again, because you disagree with me and can't explain to me why, you call me more names and non-specifically accuse me of "running around in circles." Notice what's missing? Any attempt at debating the points of discussion. Instead, we get more name-calling. Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about and so are trying incredibly hard to make my points go away by calling me names, and then accusing me of such.
Get back to me when you actually decide to start talking about music piracy and the points I raised.
What's so hilarious is that you are all over me now for turning your own methods in discussions against yourself. And when you are on the receiving end of the kind of behavior you show all the time, you get all worked up and heartbroken.
And now I'm "heartbroken!" Hysterical. You're the one running in circles here, retreading the same accusations over and over, avoiding discussing any of my points about music piracy.
I have an idea, cite an actual example where I used these "methods of discussion."
OMG, you completely twist everything, avoid answering and accuse other people of your mistakes!
This is your only retort, over and over. "OMG, d00d, you avoid answering when I haven't answered a thing!" Again, you ignore all the points I made earlier in the conversation and continue the obsession with me. Do you have anything at all to say about music piracy?
When does that happen? Stop talking BS! If it doesn't happen, it doesn't matter.
It happens all the time. Apparently, you've decided to pretend it doesn't to coincide with your worldview. Amusing.
There you go, you yourself just proved that its no big deal.
It is a big deal. You want to pretend ripping someone off isn't a big deal, but hey, thanks for admitting you're 100% anti-artist. Again, do you think John Carmack would appreciate all his years of work into Doom 3 going unpaid? Be sure to avoid this point again.
We have more importan things to worry about, then something that just means that corporations get less profit.
Thanks for illustrating my point--again--that you're obsessed with corporations. I mention the artists you're directly ripping off, and you purposely throw that out and mention "corporations" again.
I couldn't care less if universal makes less money. As long as indie artists don't get hurt (you yourself said that you can't fin their music on P2P - So how do they get hurt? Figures? Evidence? Stop avoiding the answer!).
I didn't say 100% of all independent artists in the world couldn't be found on P2P, but you need to pretend I said that to have something to attack and accuse me of "avoiding" when I'm not. Do you think The Bad Plus likes it that their album "Give" is available on eMule when they're a struggling indie jazz group? Be sure to avoid talking about the artists and go rattling on about unnamed "corporations" again.
Your view on GPL is worth a cow's ass.
I guess you believe if you repeat it enough times without explaining why, it magically becomes true.
This has nothing to do about thinking by yourself. The purpose of the GPL is a workaround against copyright. If it didn't exist, there would be no need for the GPL. If you don't believe me check the Free software foundation's page.
The GPL relies 100% on copyright to exist. Companies that violate the copyright of the GPL by not distributing code changes get blasted on Slashdot for "stealing GPL code." You want to pretend Slashdot doesn't do this when it happens all the time, which just means I'm right again.
Well, this sort of logic might cut it when your in 8th grade
Yes, you do have to have passed 8th grade to understand that kind of logical thinking, I suppose.
, but not in the real world. There is a thing called opportunity cost that means that if people had to pay for certain things, they would simply not buy these things! How does that fit into your little world?
Haha, you must've Google for some random economic term to throw out in an attempt to appear to be debating me. Opportunity cost doesn't mean that at all. Opportunity cost is the consideration of what other thing you might have purchased had you not purchased something else.
You can't handle this basic math. It's amazing. You are thrashing, struggling, desperate to avoid admitting this incredibly basic, simple fact:
Paying for music = money goes to artist
Not paying for music = no money paid to artist
This thing is self-evident. You can't argue it because it's basic math. If you don't pay someone, they don't get paid. Repeat it until you start to accept it, because apparently it's a great barrier in your mind to recognizing that when you rip off an artist's music that they put out for sale, they don't get paid for it. I guess you think money is magically going to appear in their pockets, but it doesn't. Sorry, kid, that's not how things work outside of the dorm-room.
Your pretty pathet
There's no point in responding to it, because it doesn't apply to me.
Translation: "I can't think of anything to counter your argument, so I'll pretend it's valid to say it doesn't apply to me and stick my fingers in my ears and close my eyes."
"Slashdot" is a community with lots of different people with different opinions. I know that's hard for you to accept, but it's a fact.
I know it's extremely difficult for you to accept the fact that the vast majority of Slashdot refers to "stolen GPL code," that these are the comments that get modded up, and that these are the stories that get posted. Look up the definition of groupthink sometime.
No, your opinions are based on your eagerness to be "special" and stand out by attacking anyone who has a different opinion.
Meanwhile, you still have not address a single one of my points. All you've done is resort to meaningless psycho-analysis to avoid the fact you have no counterargument, which has made me laugh every time you do it. Thanks.
Before you ask for arguments from others, provide some yourself. All you have posted so far is pure opinion, and misguided at that.
I've already proven my points. You have yet to counter them. Your mantra seems to be, "I'll just repeat over and over that you're misguided, and it will magically become true someday!"
The only thing you have zeroed in on is your own lies and deception. Your entire world view is based on useless generalizations and an inability to accept the fact that different people have different opinions. If someone doesn't share your opinion, then they are part of some Slashdot conspiracy in your world.
My world view is based on simple common sense and logic. Your head is in the clouds, unable to address a single one of my points. You're not even talking about the topic anymore, you're talking about me. I said nothing about a "Slashdot conspiracy;" you just invented that to have something to attack since you have nothing else to say on the topic at hand, music piracy.
You aren't standing up for anyone's rights.
I'm standing up for individual's rights, the right of an artist. You're standing up for the collective majority of dorm-room freeloaders who are too cheap to pay a dollar for a song and think that gives them the magic right to rip people off. Would John Carmack agree that piracy of Doom 3 is okay?
You are merely being an asshole on Slashdot because you get picked on in real life
More meaningless psycho-analysis to avoid addressing the topic at hand. The ol' "You're just picked on in real life, take that!" routine. Thanks for the laugh, kid.
, and therefore you feel the need to post under the cover of anonymity on Slashdot, and you feel safe spreading lies and attacking anyone who dares to have a different opinion from yours.
No, it's just that you're clearly frustrated at your inability to address a single one of my points, so you have to try to distract and "figure me out" to dismiss my points and avoid talking about the subject, music piracy. All you've done is talk about me.
So, how does it feel to be on the receiving end of the kind of arguments you use against other people?
Still waiting for a single retort to any of the points I made. Oh, more desperate distractions and non-specific accusations? What a surprise.
On the contrary. I have simply exposed you as what you really are.
You, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman, and I salute you. I fear your outing skills.
Actually, you are just whoring whatever is necessary at the moment to be opposed to everyone else.
No, but you need to accuse me of such so you can avoid talking about music piracy, of which you clearly know nothing about.
Tomorrow you'll be attacking artists because someone posts a Slashdot story which might be about how the recording industry exploits artists.
No, I won't at all, but thanks for pl
You still didn't answer any of my questions! Stop posting pointless personal attacks and avoiding the question!
You didn't ask any questions. All you did was avoid every single point I made.
* You still didn't prove how downloading a file of P2P results in a loss for the indie music artist
It's this magical thing called "math."
Paying for an album = money paid to artist
Not paying for an album = money not paid to artist
* You still haven't named any artists that are starving due to piracy. I'll even let you name top40 artists
Nobody is "starving" from piracy, and that has nothing to do with anything. You don't have the right to rip someone off and violate their rights as a copyright holder (or else we can kiss the GPL goodbye, since it relies on copyright to protect code).
* You still haven't addressed the issue that iTunes doesn't work with everything or on everything
This sure was left-field. What does iTunes' supported formats have to do with anything whatsoever? Besides the fact it supports WAV, AIFF, MP3, AAC, Protected AAC, AU, and Apple Lossless, the formats iTunes supports doesn't have anything to do with people ripping off other human beings.
* You seem to ignore the fact that non-top40 artists get revenue differently from top40 artists
You just pulled this out of your ass. You don't even know what you're trying to say here. "Get revenue differently?" What the heck does that have to do with anything?
* You fail to address you contradication about piracy hurting the small artist, but P2P being full of top40 stuff
Because when indie artists end up on P2P, it's worst of all because these are the artists trying to get started in their careers and make it, and need support the most.
* Your views on the nature of GPL are false, talk to RMS about it. He would know best.
I love it. You have no thought of your own, so you tell me to go to the fanatical RMS. How about thinking on your own for a change and responding yourself? My view that the GPL relies on copyright is 100% correct in every way.
* Cartels don't exists right?
No, I never said that anywhere at all. You just needed something to attack and so made it up.
Completely lame, man. What a waste of my time. Next.
For anyone interested in reading about Avalon versus Quartz and developer reaction to it, here are a few thought-provoking links:
t pc/f/48409524/m/1820008357316 131.aspxo nxaml_f/
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/
http://blogs.msdn.com/dancre/archive/2004/03/25/9
http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/04/14/aval
Metro is an extention of how elegant the new 3D Vector system built in Windows is - and also how different it is from anything Apple or anyone else has even attempted to do. Bascially when new applications for Windows are rendering cool graphics on the screen or printer, they are using XML in the from of XAML - which looks a lot like SVG, but has a 'chunk' of different abilities and purposes than SVG does. So Metro is basically just saying, ok instead of drawing this to the screen, save it in a Document, a Metro Document
So after you get done hyperventilating over this super-exciting "new" Microsoft innovation, why don't you read up on OS X and what it has done with PDF for the past five years? Quartz, also vector-based, is built on the PDF object graph, which is itself a subset of Postscript, and has allowed applications to save their contents to a PDF for years. It's one of the reasons OS X is so great with desktop publishing--what you see really is exactly what you'll get, down to the typography spacing, because the same graphics operations drawing the screen are also what get sent to the printer and what get saved to PDF.
Because anything cross-platform threatens reliance on the Windows platform. Microsoft is trying to position Avalon and XAML as mediums for delivering applications through the web, tying into Windows APIs but going through the browser. If they succeed this, they control the web as a platform too.
Microsoft uses "AJAX" (what a ridiculous term) in their own sites. They invented XMLHttpRequest.
Although they would love to see cross-platform disappear, and they're attempting that with Avalon and the "Web 2.0" technologies.
You seem to be an expert at throwing around straw man arguments. I've never referred to it as "stolen code"
Ah, the Slashdot tactic. Refer to everything as a "straw man" because you can't respond to it. Give me a break, Slashdot constantly refers to "stolen GPL code."
You made a claim that it is a big deal to everyone without backing it up. You were stating an opinion. I gave you my opinion/view on the subject. Get over it. I know that you find it hard to accept the fact that different people have different opinions, but at least try!
The problem is, my "opinions" are based on hard facts, common sense, and actual evidence. All pro-pirates have is emotion-based rhetoric and "The RIAA made me do it!"
"I say it's bogus because I just proved why it's bogus--esoteric music is rarely traded, if at all, on P2P."
Wrong.
ROFL. That's it? A one-word answer with no supporting evidence? Try finding the Lascivious Biddies on eMule. Or the live Bad Plus album. Nope, what you find on P2P networks is that, overwhelmingly, the most available groups are....the popular groups! Britney Spears, Madonna, the Beatles, Nickelback, etc. You won't find Manburger, Happy Apple, and so on.
P2P networks are not used to trade esoteric music and enrich people's musical landscapes. They're used to trade stuff on MTV and the radio so people don't have to pay for them. Purely selfish reasons.
There's nothing to counter. You are stating your opinion. But you can't handle it when my opinion is not the same as yours.
Ah, the "you can't handle my differing opinion" copout. Just admit you have no counterargument and move on.
You don't know anything about me, and yet you are making comments about what you think I'm like or what you think I've done. Again, Slashdot is an online community with thousands of different individuals. I can understand that you can only think of people as belonging to your stereotypes, but I'm afraid that simply is not the case.
Look, kid, it's obvious you've never spoken to any artist or asked them what they think. You just assumed, and I caught you on it, or else you'd have countered my point. Your mindset is completely transparent, and it clearly frustrates you that I so easily zeroed in on your worldview.
You post a lot of drivel on Slashdot, so surely you have caught the stories on these studies? If not, I suggest that you pay more attention to arguments for opposing views instead of acting like your opinion is the only one that counts.
Correlation does not equal causation. I know you probably form your worldview based entirely on Slashdot headlines, but believe it or not, there are studies that contradict your premise, and there are opinions that exist outside the humid Slashdot echo chamber.
I think it's pretty clear that your anti-individual rights agenda is pretty much decimated by simple logic.
Amazingly, I'm the one standing up for the rights of individual artists, while you are eager to rip them off. I think it's obvious who has the anti-individual agenda here.
Your attitude towards individual rights ("destroy them, who needs them anyway?") is simply indefensible, yet you continue to try and defend it.
Your only counterargument is to completely invent something I never said, and attack that. Your weak position has painted you into a corner. Knowing that I'm the one standing up for the rights of individual artists, you have no choice but to attempt to stereotype me and dismiss my opinion, instead of directly addressing all the points I made. Cute, but sad.
I'm not preventing anyone from getting paid. On the contrary.
Here's this magic thing called math:
Someone pays for album = artist gets paid for album
Someone rips off album without paying for it = artist doesn't get paid for album
I'll let you work it out in the dorm room.
That's harsh, coming from a guy who thinks everyone on Slashdo
The reason why I said that is because you repeat the same thing over and over again. I've seen enough of your rhetoric to have some idea of your standard methods of offence. I've seen ppl counter you, but it only works for one particular story in question. Basically, you repeat the same thing over and again and again even if people have argued with you. Plus I have a suspicion that you use several accounts. Why would you have several accounts if all you points are so superior and meaningful. Last resort my ass, if that would be my motivation then I would have trolled you and wouldn't be writing this post.
Oh, please, stop with the "multiple accounts" BS. I repeat the same thing over and over because pro-pirate also repeat the same things over and over--"The RIAA made me do it!" It's stupid. Take some responsibility.
Why am I obsessed with corporations?
Because you're one of those college dorm-room anti-capitalist types who think they're enlightened because they're against "greedy" corporations?
Umm, because their activity are making feel that allowing incorporation isn't really benefiting society. Very real human beings? Now you are using rhetoric, you know, proving your point by making some sort of symbolic hard working human beings.
Uh, artists aren't "symbolic hard working human beings." They're real human beings, who often pay for studios and equipment out of their own pocket and spend months of their lives to record an album only to have freeloaders who don't want to pay for it try to justify it with anti-capitalism rhetoric.
But thanks for admitting you don't think about the artist at all.
If you don't like hearing rhetoric, don't use it yourself. The last sentence in your quote is full of BS? Don't get paid? What do you mean? A download over P2P doesn't mean a lost sale for the artist.
Holy crap. Is this the illogic that has now permeated Slashdot? Not paying for something magically doesn't equal a lost sale? "What do you mean?" Here's how it works, kid:
Someone pays money for album = money gets paid to artist
Someone doesn't pay money for album = money doesn't get paid to artist
I'll let you study it in the dorm room tonight.
Human or not human (drop the "appeal to common man" diction), a loss only happens when an additional cost is incurred. This isn't really true for P2P. How can you prove that I would buy a particular song if wasn't able to pirate it?
It doesn't matter (I'll ignore your pathetic "prove a negative" argument, the true sign of a weak position). You don't have the right to rip someone off and violate their rights as a creator of a work.
And since you can't do that, there is no loss.
You are trying so desperately hard to justify piracy. It's incredible and amusing. I wish you could see yourself objectively. "You can't prove I wouldn't buy something if I didn't pirate, therefore it means there's no loss! you fell into my logic trap!!!"
Why do you think microsoft keeps its OS crackable? Because, if it wasn't, it would lose the whole of the 3rd-world market in a few months.
What in the hell does this have to do with anything? Ever heard of activiation? WGA?
Back to the corporation bit, anti-RIAAers (btw, when I say RIAA I mean content cartels etc)
"Content cartels," ROFL. More emotion-based rhetoric.
often make reference to corporations because they are what harm the consumer. Small bands and who want to make a living don't get harmed by piracy that much.
Yes, they absolutely do, and it's sickening you'd assume this for them. You haven't asked A SINGLE ARTIST. YOU DON'T KNOW ANY. YOU'RE JUST PULLING THIS OUT OF YOUR ASS ON THE SPOT.
An independent artist is trying hardest of all to make a living. But hey, go ahead and rip off these flesh-and-blood beings. Fuck 'em and their rights. Heaven forbid you pay nine bucks (the cost of a lunch for two in some restaurants,
But you're stating it as if it's a matter of fact--"People who download music also buy music." You haven't proven it, and it doesn't matter anyway. Someone who rips off someone else isn't a customer.
I wouldn't worry. iPod nanos are going to sell like hookers this Christmas. This is a lot of public snorting from a few labels that won't go anywhere, because Apple has the upper hand--they're the #1 music store and are surpassing even P2P networks in usage. Steve Jobs doesn't give a shit if Warner pulls out. Without Warner music on iTunes, iPods are still just gonna keep on sellin' while Warner loses cash to non-sales and piracy, especially when video-enabled iPods come out.
.99 per song ain't gonna happen on Jobs' watch. Apple did focus studies that determined .99 was the sweet spot.
This is just the game they play. Higher prices than
The RIAA is a lobby group, not a company. It's the labels that the RIAA merely represents who want to drive up proceeds.
Just pointing out that a lot of people are acting like the RIAA is its own entity. It's record labels, people.
You can't write off study after study by saying "correlation does not imply causation."
Yes, you can. If you're going to cite all the studies to back a flawed premise, they can all be written off. Correlation does not imply causation is a basic logical tenet to avoid chasing false conclusions that aren't true.
You just want to believe that the studies support your pre-made conclusion. That is why avoiding such logical fallacies is so important, and why "correlation does not imply causation" is a completely valid response.
The fact remains that it's pointless anyway, as the copyright holders are getting ripped off and have the right to determine how their materials are distributed, not some Slashdotter with a DSL line trying desperately to justify ripping off music, game, and movie companies. Ask Slashdot geek hero John Carmack sometime how he feels about people pirating Doom 3. Think he'll agree with your side? He worked for years on that game, but people don't compensate him for it. Such reasons are why companies are flocking to consoles, where it's more difficult to pirate, and why the PC game industry is in decline.
These are the consequences pirates never think of. It's like when people throw a piece of trash out the window on a highway. "One piece of trash won't hurt." "Someone else will clean it up." Multiply that person by hundreds of thousands, and the results are disastrous.