Sure, go build a better buggy whip and I won't bitch. But since most folks are just downloading 'buggy-whip-copier 1.0', it's a different issue.
Here's why I call BS on all of the 'sharing' (with respect to copyrighted music) folks: The great justification was "I hate having to buy the whole album when I only like 2 songs".
First, you're not entitled to every song being a hit. Music has always been 75% filler... the fact that kids are just now realizing this doesn't change the fact. But people said "if I could buy the songs I want, for, say... a buck each, that would be OK".
I've bought albums, gone 'wow, most of that was crap', and just didn't buy that artist again. No outrage, no "They OWE ME". Just a (subjective) lesson learned.
Second, when music became downloadable for a buck a song, the same damned people whined about the high cost, and set about circumenting the DRM. What the fuck are the music folks supposed to do then? Just give up because some kid feels entitled?
Look, if you're gonna steal (yeah, I know... 'infringe'), then just do it. Professional theives say 'I'm a thief', and don't lay down a philosophical BS line to justify it.
For the 5% that actually have a non greed-based objection to copyright, I can respect that. but 95% of people just want free shit, and that's pretty damned weak.
I dunno, a few million in the US, maybe. Lets say 10 million. And the US population is about 280M, so you've got aways before ya hit critical mass, AC.
Remember, most people still regard computers as somewhat suspect, the slashdot crowd is NOT representative of the country.
You don't have to do anything. I'm just reminding the typical slashdot "fuck 'em if they have more money than me" types that there is a human component to all this.
Lots of societies on this planet to choose from... also, you could go live in the woods, or off yourself... lots of options. Denying responsibility for choices, whilst a national pastime, is not a tenable position.
So, I guess that makes all that payola and price fixing ok then.
Nope, I was addressing the very cavalier attitude most folks around here have. They might be less harsh if they considered that there are _people_, not just a corporation involved.
Yeah, I agree with that last point. I would also suggest that declaring an entire industry evil and contemptable because Joe ScriptKiddie downloaded Kazaa and can steal easily is pretty rediculous.
Business models fail and are replaced. But this one industry is being attacked in a unique way, and isn't being given time to adjust (and when it tries, (say, with something like Itunes) someone writes something to circumvent THAT (like, breaking the DRM on Itunes). How the hell do we expect this industry to react? People will always act in their best interests.
At this point, a relatively small segment (a few million people, mostly young) are breaking the law, duplicating works 'because they can'. I don't think this will ever get to the point where it's such a huge number of people that society changes it's point of view. I thought _maybe_ software would drive that, but OSS is offering such good alternatives, that I doubt it.
Hmm... good point. Perhaps my original term of 'rules' would be a better fit, and it works well with 'play well with others'. Many societal 'rules' are not codified into law, but remain as norms and mores.
Not really. I agree that they can't keep you from loaning out the disc. But that's because it's an existing law, just like copyright. The company can state laws, and they can state their wishes (with respect to loaning the CD, etc) alongside those laws, but only the laws have any power.
So, the fact that someone broke the law (again, objecting to the law doesn't release you from being subject to it) and is punished is them being persecuted? Bullshit.
No, the social contract says that you agree to follow the laws, or get out. Hey, if you want to break the laws, that fine, but realize that you are likely to be punished for doing so.
P2P is cool, I think the knuckleheads trying to ban it are missing the point... Bittorrent for example is a tremendously useful tool. No, the tools should not be held responsible for the user (drunk drivers kill people, I shouldn't lose my car). This wasn't my argument. I was stating that the 'we're being persecuted for breaking the rules' argument is crap.
Yeah, I knew the civil rights issue would come up. And yeah, it's a hell of a stretch... I'd wager that treating people like subhumans and copying the latest Backstreet Boys are not _quite_ analogous.
Also, it could be argued that the basic laws of the country (remember the 'all men are created equal' bit) were being violated by denying black folks civil rights.
It's called an implied social contract. You choose to live in a society, if you won't live by the rules, you need to leave or suffer the consequences of your actions. LOTS of people only follow the rules they want, yet expect full protection from the courts, military, fire/police, etc. Seems a pretty hypocritical approach to me, hence the 'cop out' comment.
You can't rob people on the street or commit fraud legally
Nope, nor can you copy w/o permission. If a stranger on the street gives permission, it ain't robbery. So, you are correct: When the copyright holder gives permission, you can make copies. This is within the 'rules'.
To leave your post as it was is intellectually lazy
Oh, come on. I'm trying to make a point here, not have a pissing contest, or flamewar.
There is an existing economic system, built in a time where it was not possible to duplicate goods w/o cost. And a lot of people have a lot invested in that system ("Fuck the RIAA" you say? Those companies employ a lot of people... Folks just trying to feed their kids and live life, just like most people).
Now, it is very easy to duplicate many of these kinds of goods. This reduces the incentive of the companies to produce... their revenue per unit of work decreases, which hurts the company.
Of course, you can copy music (I won't call it 'theft' because I don't want to call down the semantics people). I can also rob people on the street, commit fraud, etc. Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.
Think what you will of copyright as a concept, but to berate folks who are playing within the 'rules' (whether you agree with the rules or not is immaterial) as 'stupid', 'greedy' or '[insert expletive here]' is grossly unfair.
Now, if you want to change the rules, fine. If enough people agree, they'll change. But stop breaking the rules for and then casting yourself as a persecuted party. It's intellectually lazy and a cop out.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine. Theft is ok because the supreme court made a bad call in a tough situation. gotcha.
Ok. So it's legal where you live, why should you be afraid? Since I was clearly discussing a place where it is NOT...
Should I start naming STUFF THAT IS LEGAL WHERE I LIVE too?
Sure, go build a better buggy whip and I won't bitch. But since most folks are just downloading 'buggy-whip-copier 1.0', it's a different issue.
Here's why I call BS on all of the 'sharing' (with respect to copyrighted music) folks: The great justification was "I hate having to buy the whole album when I only like 2 songs".
First, you're not entitled to every song being a hit. Music has always been 75% filler... the fact that kids are just now realizing this doesn't change the fact. But people said "if I could buy the songs I want, for, say... a buck each, that would be OK".
I've bought albums, gone 'wow, most of that was crap', and just didn't buy that artist again. No outrage, no "They OWE ME". Just a (subjective) lesson learned.
Second, when music became downloadable for a buck a song, the same damned people whined about the high cost, and set about circumenting the DRM. What the fuck are the music folks supposed to do then? Just give up because some kid feels entitled?
Look, if you're gonna steal (yeah, I know... 'infringe'), then just do it. Professional theives say 'I'm a thief', and don't lay down a philosophical BS line to justify it.
For the 5% that actually have a non greed-based objection to copyright, I can respect that. but 95% of people just want free shit, and that's pretty damned weak.
I dunno, a few million in the US, maybe. Lets say 10 million. And the US population is about 280M, so you've got aways before ya hit critical mass, AC.
Remember, most people still regard computers as somewhat suspect, the slashdot crowd is NOT representative of the country.
You don't have to do anything. I'm just reminding the typical slashdot "fuck 'em if they have more money than me" types that there is a human component to all this.
Lots of societies on this planet to choose from... also, you could go live in the woods, or off yourself... lots of options. Denying responsibility for choices, whilst a national pastime, is not a tenable position.
So the grand conclusion is if they can do bad, so can I ? Weak.
Pretty much everything you've said is true.
Now, Does any of that entitle you to free music?
So, I guess that makes all that payola and price fixing ok then.
Nope, I was addressing the very cavalier attitude most folks around here have. They might be less harsh if they considered that there are _people_, not just a corporation involved.
If you smoke, I can spoke too? What?
Yeah, I agree with that last point. I would also suggest that declaring an entire industry evil and contemptable because Joe ScriptKiddie downloaded Kazaa and can steal easily is pretty rediculous.
Business models fail and are replaced. But this one industry is being attacked in a unique way, and isn't being given time to adjust (and when it tries, (say, with something like Itunes) someone writes something to circumvent THAT (like, breaking the DRM on Itunes). How the hell do we expect this industry to react? People will always act in their best interests.
5. Nitwits who don't understand the work assume it's easy, thus making it impossible to get any respect.
IT folks WORKED and LEARNED a shitload of stuff to get there. Take your hating elsewhere.
Very insightful. So, are we emulating the movie 'hackers' again?
Good point. That said, when was the last time you voluntarily broadcast information that made you look bad?
At this point, a relatively small segment (a few million people, mostly young) are breaking the law, duplicating works 'because they can'. I don't think this will ever get to the point where it's such a huge number of people that society changes it's point of view. I thought _maybe_ software would drive that, but OSS is offering such good alternatives, that I doubt it.
Hmm... good point. Perhaps my original term of 'rules' would be a better fit, and it works well with 'play well with others'. Many societal 'rules' are not codified into law, but remain as norms and mores.
Not really. I agree that they can't keep you from loaning out the disc. But that's because it's an existing law, just like copyright. The company can state laws, and they can state their wishes (with respect to loaning the CD, etc) alongside those laws, but only the laws have any power.
So, the fact that someone broke the law (again, objecting to the law doesn't release you from being subject to it) and is punished is them being persecuted? Bullshit.
No, the social contract says that you agree to follow the laws, or get out. Hey, if you want to break the laws, that fine, but realize that you are likely to be punished for doing so.
P2P is cool, I think the knuckleheads trying to ban it are missing the point... Bittorrent for example is a tremendously useful tool. No, the tools should not be held responsible for the user (drunk drivers kill people, I shouldn't lose my car). This wasn't my argument. I was stating that the 'we're being persecuted for breaking the rules' argument is crap.
Actually, I could give a damn about 'morality' (I tried to indicate that in the original post), I was going strictly on legal grounds.
I don't argue morality, it's inherently subjective, yet people act like it's objective. Can't be argued. So I don't.
Fair enough... large enough groups can acquire enough influence, due to sheer mass.
Yeah, I knew the civil rights issue would come up. And yeah, it's a hell of a stretch... I'd wager that treating people like subhumans and copying the latest Backstreet Boys are not _quite_ analogous.
Also, it could be argued that the basic laws of the country (remember the 'all men are created equal' bit) were being violated by denying black folks civil rights.
It's called an implied social contract. You choose to live in a society, if you won't live by the rules, you need to leave or suffer the consequences of your actions. LOTS of people only follow the rules they want, yet expect full protection from the courts, military, fire/police, etc. Seems a pretty hypocritical approach to me, hence the 'cop out' comment.
You can't rob people on the street or commit fraud legally
Nope, nor can you copy w/o permission. If a stranger on the street gives permission, it ain't robbery. So, you are correct: When the copyright holder gives permission, you can make copies. This is within the 'rules'.
To leave your post as it was is intellectually lazy
Oh, come on. I'm trying to make a point here, not have a pissing contest, or flamewar.
There is an existing economic system, built in a time where it was not possible to duplicate goods w/o cost. And a lot of people have a lot invested in that system ("Fuck the RIAA" you say? Those companies employ a lot of people... Folks just trying to feed their kids and live life, just like most people).
Now, it is very easy to duplicate many of these kinds of goods. This reduces the incentive of the companies to produce... their revenue per unit of work decreases, which hurts the company.
Of course, you can copy music (I won't call it 'theft' because I don't want to call down the semantics people). I can also rob people on the street, commit fraud, etc. Morality aside, all of these are breaking the 'rules' of society.
Think what you will of copyright as a concept, but to berate folks who are playing within the 'rules' (whether you agree with the rules or not is immaterial) as 'stupid', 'greedy' or '[insert expletive here]' is grossly unfair.
Now, if you want to change the rules, fine. If enough people agree, they'll change. But stop breaking the rules for and then casting yourself as a persecuted party. It's intellectually lazy and a cop out.
Is that Mac finally put out a good OS. How am I supposed to sneer at crapintoshes now?
Oh well... I can still badmouth windows.
ICalendar is a standard that is cross platform. A whole buncha programs (including Mozilla Calendar/Sunbird) for linux/winders support it.
Reading that just sprained my brain. Don't ever do that again.