I've given up on trying to stay bleeding edge. Those are my price ranges, and they aren't changing. It's actually a little more complicated then that really. Usually hardware will be priced slightly more for each increment of power. At a certain point, the gap between increments is huge. That's usually where I stop, right before that gap. And I've found that usually the price jump happens at around $250, where the chip below it would be $240, but the chip above it is $350. Same with video. This keeps me with a system fast enough to play most games for it's life time, with only slight lagging near the end of the cycle. If I only used this thing for development, it would be different. But I need something for all scenarios.
Then how about this. To apply for a drug patent, the company should have to state how much money was spent on R&D. The patent should last until that money is recouped, and a certain amount of profit is made. After that, the patent is no longer valid. No one can complain about spending on R&D, since they are guarenteed it back. And they are making money. And after a time, it is open to many other companies, making the process cheaper.
And yes, there should be government regulations regarding how much can be charged for a new drug, outsourcing manufacturing to other companies to guarentee supply, and a host of other things. But as with much of the patent and copyright situation today, most other systems would be better then what is in place today.
Monitor is separate, because they usually last a good long time. I will be upgrading to LCD one day, but I'm happy with my 21" for now. It was $235 though, and was bought shortly after this system, so I'll include it in the total. CD and DVD are pretty cheap nowadays, so they are in the $50 spending money splurge catagory. Besides, I'm still using my workhorse 4X CD burner. I can live with that for now. Keyboard and mouse is pretty much the same story. I've had this keyboard since my 486 days, and I'm not giving it up until it dies. Amazingly, none of the letters have worn off yet, or even show any wearing. Other then being a little dirty, this thing is as good as the day it was built. I don't get excited about sound, so the built-in sound card is fine for me. Usually about a year after I have the system, I build another hard drive for $100, usually because the first one is now full. You usually can get the same kind you bought the first time around too.
So in total, I budget about $1100-1200 for a new system every 2 years. Plus $100-$200 for extras throughout the cycle. The system I'm on now has cost me about $1400, with the monitor included. And yes...I will give you the specs:
AMD XP 2200+
ASUS A7V333
ASUS Nvidia Ti4200 128 meg
Cheapo Memory (has heat problems, but with a heat sink works great.)
2X Maxtor ATA/133 80 gig
Most importantly, it does everything I want it to. Runs a little slow with Doom3, but I'm running it higher then the computer can handle properly, so I'm not complaining. And for $1200 every 2 years, it keeps me up-to-date for a fair price.
Ok, seriously, bad movie. I only watched it because there was nothing else on and it had the guy who played Q in it.
Re:I haven't taken anything like this...
on
IT Literacy Test
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
My techniques are rarely the "industry standard" techniques...
Man, when I was in college, we had 8 or 9 different "Industry Standards". While most teachers were absolutely convinced that their method was the "Industry Standard", there were a few knowledgable enough to explained the whole thing to us. Mostly when people talk about "Industry Standards", it's manager-speak for "The Way We Do Things Here." So if you don't follow the "Industry Standards", you will not be working for long.
Also keep in mind that "Industry Standards" in the sense that I'm talking about has absolutely nothing to do with real ISO or QS standards. Those are actual organizations that create a set of standard rules for companies to follow, usually for the safety of workers and quality assurance of products. No, I'm just talking BS manager-speak...
Me, College: I can write anything in three lines of code!
I got a lot of flak for that. But it still doesn't match telling a teacher "This program is PERFECT!" Yeah, he examined my code a lot closer then everyone else after that. There have been many more, but those are some of the more ridiculess ones.
The best thing would have been for me to learn from these events...but I haven't...
Uh huh...tell me that again when I get back from fixing my friend's sister's machine that she claims she never mucks with but things mysteriously stop working anyways. In fact, I'm getting ready to leave soon for her place. The day I start getting paid $40 an hour for putting up with this bullshit is the day I stop looking down at these people. Until then, it's my right, and pretty much my only payment...
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
Did you missed the part where I said there would be a public copyright, which lasts 10 years, and a commercial copyright, which lasts the artists lifetime? A system that would allow people who won't make any money to making a copy of work after 10 years, and force anyone trying to make money from copying a work to pay or be denied. Do you even bother the read the entire post? You seem to be only taking small parts of my post, and only attacking the small parts that you disagree with (10 year copyright). This is exactly what the big corporations do...attack something they don't like by focusing intensely on one particular thing.
Look, all I know is that by keeping artists in the current system only hurts them more then doing something about changing the system. It's easy to sit back and say "Leave copyright alone, it's the only thing protecting the artists!", because that's what the corporate propaganda tells you. In reality, the artists are offered little to no protection from this system. They are still being exploited. With musicians, they are still being denied their money, and worse their own work since nowadays they have to sign contracts that give labels all rights to songs the artist creates. And they have no choice, either they sign or they just don't make it. Either way they don't make money, but at least one way offers them the fame and glory, so most people will sign. Authors have it slightly better, but have to deal with contracts that heavily favour the publishers or just not publish their book. So how is this system good when artists no longer own their songs, that instead the "copyright" is owned by some megacorporation, that they can't even legally sing their own songs in a bar 20 years later to make money because the megacorporation owns the songs, how is this a good system? How is a system that purpetuates "starving writer syndrome" good? How is a system that protects corporations but not artists a good system? How is a system that was put in place to protect artists, but now only protects large corporations with lots of money and a loud voice, good? When you learn that copyright has absolutely nothing to do with protecting artists and everything to do with protecting corporate interests, then you might want the system to change too...
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
That actually doesn't sound like a bad system. WTF happened?
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
What if a cigarette company used your song to advertise smoking to children.
Commercial gains. Sue their asses for not securing payment to the artist if they are still alive, and if the artist refuses then tough titties. That's why there would be a public copyright and a commercial copyright. Those making money from something have to pay, those not are free to do what they If their not alive anymore...well cigarette companies could use Camp Town Races in their commercials legally now, but do you see it happening? But on the other hand, you can also create a mixed CD with Camp Town Races on it now, but you can't put the Beatles Strawberry Fields on it legally.
And copyright IS that big on price. While an artist might get that $6.60 from every 7 albums sold, the publisher, unions, and other assorted middlemen get $120, not to mention a large chunk thrown into lobbying and DRM schemes and suing 12 year olds. And lets not forget those advances you talked about, which means for the first million albums or so the artist sees nothing. This system is what's hurting the artists, not me. ANY change can only help the artists...
Never mind that Microsoft programmers are some of the most handsomely paid in the business.
Correction: *Fulltime* Microsoft programmers are paid handsomely. The rest of the programmers are getting screwed. Go read No Logo if you don't believe me. So the "Starving Programmers" commercials will be real. Real, as in their actually starving, but not because you won't more for software...
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
OK, that was really too long, but since you put a lot of effort into it, I'll respond. With all the examples you've shown how copyright was instituted to protect artists from other people making money off their works, and the example of how publishers give advances that requires the artist to spend 10 years of not making a cent, and how things released into the public domain can still make money...doesn't all of this tell you there is something inherently wrong with the system? If an artist is being taken advantage of and doesn't see a cent while the publishers and middlemen (i.e. "other people") make tons, even though there are laws in place that are suppose to protect the artist and prevent these thing from happening, doesn't that say the system is broken?
But to some, the system is not broken. It's working exactly the way it's be molded to work. To save Mickey Mouse. There's a saying that goes "Whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain, copyright gets extended by 25 years." In fact I think I've seen it on the QOTD at the bottom of Slashdot. There are thousands of other things that should be in the public domain but aren't, all owned by huge corporations who don't want their investments to be taken by the public. It's not that Disney couldn't still make money off of Mickey Mouse and all his friends if they were public domain. It's that other people could start making money from them, without ridiculessly high licencing costs paid to Disney. And they don't like that idea, because then they'd make less money. So copyright might have started out as a way to protect artists, albeit a slightly misguided way, but it has been highjacked to protect corporate interests instead while providing little to no protection to real artists. And as for copyrights protecting people from rivals who oppose their views taking their works and using them in campaigns against them, I do believe there are defamation laws in place now that would protect against that. Copyright would not be needed in that case, in an ideal world.
So how about this. Leave the 10 year public copyright in place, so that after 10 years people can access works without the threats of fines and jail. But leave a law in place that states anyone making money from a work must pay the artist for his/her lifetime. If that were in place, P2P could legitamately work, or at least moreso then now. Recent works would be protected by law and could possibly be filtered, since a 10 year list would be much easier to filter then a 100 year list. But people sharing public domain works for free would be clear to do so. And people selling public domain works would still have to pay the artists. Everyone wins. As for books, Project Gutenburg would benefit greatly from a 10 year copyright. One of the issues they face now is that they can only put books published before 1923 (with some complications) online. Imagine being able to download "The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy", or "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" without being called a pirate. But reading a book on a computer is a little difficult and not as convenient as a real book. So in that case, people could download for free, or pay for a real book and pay the artist, and all the while be a good law abiding citizen. This is just one idea. I'm sure there are many others that would work much better to protect the artists then what's in place now. Actually...lets switch gears for a moment. Imagine being able to download "Star Wars" or "The Exorcist" without being called a pirate. People would still buy the DVDs, with all the extra features and all of George's "improvments". But there would be no restrictions from just downloading and watching a movie. And we wouldn't have to sit through commercials saying that pirates hurt the camera men and stage hands. I can imagine a much better world then the one we live in now...if it weren't for corporation getting too greedy...
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
Just want to ask...how long should you profit? I mean, if this is all for profit, how long do you deserve it. You can't have it forever, because then what incentive do you have? You can write one book, and if you have a copyright forever then you wouldn't ever have to write another book if there were forever copyrights. And then the world who be without your brilliant creativity, because you're living the high life off of one book. Not to mention your kids becoming little spoiled brats because they never have to work a day in their lives because they're sill making money off of your one book. So that can't work. How about your lifetime? Sounds good, but it's as bad as forever. What incentive would you have if you only ever had to write one book and live the high life for the rest of your existance? So that can't work either?
So how about a fixed amount of time? What is it today? 150 years? No no no...that's as bad as your lifetime. Lets bring that down a little. How about 75 years, like it was originally? Is making money off your book for 75 years good? For me, that's still too long, because you'll more then likely write your book in your mid 20s, maybe early 30s. So that means you'll make money off it until for 100. Most likely you'll die far before that due to an excessive lifestyle brought on by your success. So that's not good.
So how about this...make copyrights 10 years. You'll make money for 10 years. But that means you'll have to create something else in order to keep making money. Not only that, but those of us that waited the 10 years to finally read your book because we couldn't afford it before will finally get to read it legally. Millions will benefit from reading your book for free. Your work will become public domain, and hence owned by everyone. You will add your great existance to the world through your book, because everyone is allowed to read it.
Now if you could just get rid of those darned libraries that flagrantly disregard copyright by buying your book and letting ANYONE read it for free. Not to mention finding a way to keep those pesky freeloaders from "borrowing" your book from their friends. Then you'd have quite the system, wouldn't you?
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.
And isn't that the whole problem right there? The publishers are trying to change the rules in their favour, while leaving their customers with few alternatives. There are a set of rules that allows the publisher to get paid (CD levies, store levies, etc), to cover "losses" from people copying things. In return, people were given the right to make back ups of their purchases. This was the "Fair Use" clause. While it does allow for some people to make illegal backups, for the most part people stayed within the law. Now that the publishers have found a new enemy to blame all their woes on (P2P), they are systematically removing fair use rights, while still holding on to their money paid from the levies. What will be left is a system where people will be paying 3 or 4 times for the same item, and if it is lost or broken then they have to pay 3 or 4 times again for that item. Their rights to back up what they bought have been taken away. Whether you like this or not doesn't matter. In time, the whole system will crumble under it's own weight. People will spend less money on those items, because the value/price ratio will be so far out of whack. The whole exercise of trying to "save themselves" will ultimately be the publishers downfall. While this idea doesn't make me sad, what does make me sad is that customer rights will practically be non-existant by that time.
If you were an artist and some store was playing your CD over and over wouldn't you want to be recompensed in some way?
Ok...lets say you are that artist. Did the store in question pay for your CD when they bought it? Yes? Then STFU...you got paid. Now you just want to be paid again for someone adverising your CD in their establishment. Funny...I would have thought free advertising would be welcomed by artists. It's not as if they are burning copies in the back and handing them out to everyone. They are simply playing it. YOU should probably pay the store owner for playing your CD in their store. Because it's not like you are the only one with a CD out, and I'm sure someone would appreciate the free advertising...
Some of those hard drives can hold up to 80MB of data.. holy crap.. think of what you could do with 80,000,000 bytes of space... it hurts to even think about it...
If you buy a car off the lot, you don't tell the dealership what they are going to sell it to you for, they tell you.
It's sad to see that bartering and negotiation is a lost art. If I go to a car lot, and tell them I'd like to buy a car, I can ask that they lower their asking price. If they don't, I say goodbye and they lose a sale to the competition. That's the power of capitalism. You can ask whatever the hell you want for a product, and I can refuse that price and find something else. That's what the RIAA is finding out right now. They can ask whatever price they want for music, but if people don't want to pay they won't. I'm not saying that the whole downloading debacle is right...just that it's a byproduct of the RIAA's own doing...
(No AMD suggestions please. I've never found them to be as stable as Intel CPUs ).
Bud...then you're limiting your speed and power right there. AMD systems are quite stable from my experience. Usually, it's when people buy bad equipment to surround their chip that causes them to think the chip is bad. Such as my own recent stablitily problems. After replacing the CPU fan and heatsink, replacing the power supply, and very nearly sinking $300 into a water-cooling system because I thought the chip was over heating, I spent $25 on a memory heatsink. Haven't had a single problem with unstablity since. And believe me...this system holds it's own against the hot and heavy Intel systems that are rated at several hundred Megahertz faster...
Personally, I think the grandparent poster subscribes to the moral adage of a geek friend of mine: If you find a woman with a kid, you know she puts out.
And I'd personally like to say: FUCK YOU, you self-righteous bastard. Not ONCE did I ever think I was getting anything in return for this. And I especially didn't expect to get a good fuck out of the mother for it. I did this, because it was the only way I could give this kid what he wanted. I did this to spare his mother from hearing him ask "If I'm really really good, can I get this game for my birthday?", and then feel guilty if she couldn't. So fuck you. Sometimes there are people who will help without expecting anything in return.
Man...you must be smoking pretty strong stuff to believe that. First off...BONG HITS ARE NOT ILLEGAL! What could be illegal is what's in the bowl. But the actual device itself isn't. At least in some part of the US and most of Canada. There were some strange incidents, like the owner of Chills Cigarette Papers being arrested for "manufacturing drug paraphernalia." And then there was the arrest of Tommy Chong. Christ...who couldn't see THAT one coming. But still, is it necessary? No...pipes and papers could be used for many other things...
The other thing is, and I know this from great experience, you don't need a bong to smoke. Or at least a store-bought bong. Bongs can be made out of a great number of things, all of which look inconspicuous. Besides that, you can use papers to roll a joint; use a regular tobacco pipe; set it on fire and put a bottle with the bottom cut off over it; create a lung with a pop bottle, some tape, an empty bread bag, and a piece of tin foil; you could make a gravity bong with a pop bottle, a bucket, and a piece of tin foil...I could go on, but you get the point. There are a great number of ways to smoke pot. And many don't even require walking into a store...
I'll agree with that. I'd rather see him out in the woods learning things. But where they are living, it makes me feel a lot better knowing he's at home playing video games then out on the street steal cars and getting into gang fights...
I think the vast majority of people who own 'modded' consoles have had them modded so they can hire a game from Blockbuster and pirate it.
I'll agree, but even for those who pirate there are various reasons why. I'm not saying they are good reasons, but still. A friend of mine has a son. She doesn't have a lot of money, but she gives her kids everything she can. That included the PSX and a bunch of games and such for Christmas. The only problem was that after Christmas, there's not much money left for games. So the following Christmas, I decided to do them both a favour. About 2 weeks before Christmas, I took his PSX and installed a mod chip. For Christmas, I gave him three copied games, and told him that I could get him more. This kid was so excited he was in tears. It meant that he got to play all the games he wanted. And it meant even more to his mother, who was thankful she didn't have to worry about spending $60 on one game. Instead she could use the money to buy food and clothes for the kids. And it made me feel good, because I helped out a family that didn't get a lot of nice things.
Now I will say that yes, I do know that it's illegal. I don't kid myself by thinking "well, it's for a good cause, so it's OK". And that it probably wasn't the best morality lesson to teach the kid. But you know what...sometimes the moral thing to do isn't the best thing to do. So what....one kid who wasn't born to rich parents gets to enjoy his childhood a little more. I don't feel guilty about giving him that pleasure. Maybe that say more about society then piracy...
Slashdot Mirror
I've given up on trying to stay bleeding edge. Those are my price ranges, and they aren't changing. It's actually a little more complicated then that really. Usually hardware will be priced slightly more for each increment of power. At a certain point, the gap between increments is huge. That's usually where I stop, right before that gap. And I've found that usually the price jump happens at around $250, where the chip below it would be $240, but the chip above it is $350. Same with video. This keeps me with a system fast enough to play most games for it's life time, with only slight lagging near the end of the cycle. If I only used this thing for development, it would be different. But I need something for all scenarios.
Then how about this. To apply for a drug patent, the company should have to state how much money was spent on R&D. The patent should last until that money is recouped, and a certain amount of profit is made. After that, the patent is no longer valid. No one can complain about spending on R&D, since they are guarenteed it back. And they are making money. And after a time, it is open to many other companies, making the process cheaper.
And yes, there should be government regulations regarding how much can be charged for a new drug, outsourcing manufacturing to other companies to guarentee supply, and a host of other things. But as with much of the patent and copyright situation today, most other systems would be better then what is in place today.
I have a normally defined 2 year upgrade cycle for just myself. Buy whatever is good at the time with set price ranges:
Mobo, $20-$250
Chip, $200-$250
Memory, $200
Video, $200-$250
HD, $200
Case, $100
Monitor is separate, because they usually last a good long time. I will be upgrading to LCD one day, but I'm happy with my 21" for now. It was $235 though, and was bought shortly after this system, so I'll include it in the total. CD and DVD are pretty cheap nowadays, so they are in the $50 spending money splurge catagory. Besides, I'm still using my workhorse 4X CD burner. I can live with that for now. Keyboard and mouse is pretty much the same story. I've had this keyboard since my 486 days, and I'm not giving it up until it dies. Amazingly, none of the letters have worn off yet, or even show any wearing. Other then being a little dirty, this thing is as good as the day it was built. I don't get excited about sound, so the built-in sound card is fine for me. Usually about a year after I have the system, I build another hard drive for $100, usually because the first one is now full. You usually can get the same kind you bought the first time around too.
So in total, I budget about $1100-1200 for a new system every 2 years. Plus $100-$200 for extras throughout the cycle. The system I'm on now has cost me about $1400, with the monitor included. And yes...I will give you the specs:
AMD XP 2200+
ASUS A7V333
ASUS Nvidia Ti4200 128 meg
Cheapo Memory (has heat problems, but with a heat sink works great.)
2X Maxtor ATA/133 80 gig
Most importantly, it does everything I want it to. Runs a little slow with Doom3, but I'm running it higher then the computer can handle properly, so I'm not complaining. And for $1200 every 2 years, it keeps me up-to-date for a fair price.
But...won't Q come to the rescue only to get himself killed?
Ok, seriously, bad movie. I only watched it because there was nothing else on and it had the guy who played Q in it.
My techniques are rarely the "industry standard" techniques...
Man, when I was in college, we had 8 or 9 different "Industry Standards". While most teachers were absolutely convinced that their method was the "Industry Standard", there were a few knowledgable enough to explained the whole thing to us. Mostly when people talk about "Industry Standards", it's manager-speak for "The Way We Do Things Here." So if you don't follow the "Industry Standards", you will not be working for long.
Also keep in mind that "Industry Standards" in the sense that I'm talking about has absolutely nothing to do with real ISO or QS standards. Those are actual organizations that create a set of standard rules for companies to follow, usually for the safety of workers and quality assurance of products. No, I'm just talking BS manager-speak...
Me, College: I can write anything in three lines of code!
I got a lot of flak for that. But it still doesn't match telling a teacher "This program is PERFECT!" Yeah, he examined my code a lot closer then everyone else after that. There have been many more, but those are some of the more ridiculess ones.
The best thing would have been for me to learn from these events...but I haven't...
Uh huh...tell me that again when I get back from fixing my friend's sister's machine that she claims she never mucks with but things mysteriously stop working anyways. In fact, I'm getting ready to leave soon for her place. The day I start getting paid $40 an hour for putting up with this bullshit is the day I stop looking down at these people. Until then, it's my right, and pretty much my only payment...
Did you missed the part where I said there would be a public copyright, which lasts 10 years, and a commercial copyright, which lasts the artists lifetime? A system that would allow people who won't make any money to making a copy of work after 10 years, and force anyone trying to make money from copying a work to pay or be denied. Do you even bother the read the entire post? You seem to be only taking small parts of my post, and only attacking the small parts that you disagree with (10 year copyright). This is exactly what the big corporations do...attack something they don't like by focusing intensely on one particular thing.
Look, all I know is that by keeping artists in the current system only hurts them more then doing something about changing the system. It's easy to sit back and say "Leave copyright alone, it's the only thing protecting the artists!", because that's what the corporate propaganda tells you. In reality, the artists are offered little to no protection from this system. They are still being exploited. With musicians, they are still being denied their money, and worse their own work since nowadays they have to sign contracts that give labels all rights to songs the artist creates. And they have no choice, either they sign or they just don't make it. Either way they don't make money, but at least one way offers them the fame and glory, so most people will sign. Authors have it slightly better, but have to deal with contracts that heavily favour the publishers or just not publish their book. So how is this system good when artists no longer own their songs, that instead the "copyright" is owned by some megacorporation, that they can't even legally sing their own songs in a bar 20 years later to make money because the megacorporation owns the songs, how is this a good system? How is a system that purpetuates "starving writer syndrome" good? How is a system that protects corporations but not artists a good system? How is a system that was put in place to protect artists, but now only protects large corporations with lots of money and a loud voice, good? When you learn that copyright has absolutely nothing to do with protecting artists and everything to do with protecting corporate interests, then you might want the system to change too...
That actually doesn't sound like a bad system. WTF happened?
What if a cigarette company used your song to advertise smoking to children.
Commercial gains. Sue their asses for not securing payment to the artist if they are still alive, and if the artist refuses then tough titties. That's why there would be a public copyright and a commercial copyright. Those making money from something have to pay, those not are free to do what they If their not alive anymore...well cigarette companies could use Camp Town Races in their commercials legally now, but do you see it happening? But on the other hand, you can also create a mixed CD with Camp Town Races on it now, but you can't put the Beatles Strawberry Fields on it legally.
And copyright IS that big on price. While an artist might get that $6.60 from every 7 albums sold, the publisher, unions, and other assorted middlemen get $120, not to mention a large chunk thrown into lobbying and DRM schemes and suing 12 year olds. And lets not forget those advances you talked about, which means for the first million albums or so the artist sees nothing. This system is what's hurting the artists, not me. ANY change can only help the artists...
Never mind that Microsoft programmers are some of the most handsomely paid in the business.
Correction: *Fulltime* Microsoft programmers are paid handsomely. The rest of the programmers are getting screwed. Go read No Logo if you don't believe me. So the "Starving Programmers" commercials will be real. Real, as in their actually starving, but not because you won't more for software...
OK, that was really too long, but since you put a lot of effort into it, I'll respond. With all the examples you've shown how copyright was instituted to protect artists from other people making money off their works, and the example of how publishers give advances that requires the artist to spend 10 years of not making a cent, and how things released into the public domain can still make money...doesn't all of this tell you there is something inherently wrong with the system? If an artist is being taken advantage of and doesn't see a cent while the publishers and middlemen (i.e. "other people") make tons, even though there are laws in place that are suppose to protect the artist and prevent these thing from happening, doesn't that say the system is broken?
But to some, the system is not broken. It's working exactly the way it's be molded to work. To save Mickey Mouse. There's a saying that goes "Whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain, copyright gets extended by 25 years." In fact I think I've seen it on the QOTD at the bottom of Slashdot. There are thousands of other things that should be in the public domain but aren't, all owned by huge corporations who don't want their investments to be taken by the public. It's not that Disney couldn't still make money off of Mickey Mouse and all his friends if they were public domain. It's that other people could start making money from them, without ridiculessly high licencing costs paid to Disney. And they don't like that idea, because then they'd make less money. So copyright might have started out as a way to protect artists, albeit a slightly misguided way, but it has been highjacked to protect corporate interests instead while providing little to no protection to real artists. And as for copyrights protecting people from rivals who oppose their views taking their works and using them in campaigns against them, I do believe there are defamation laws in place now that would protect against that. Copyright would not be needed in that case, in an ideal world.
So how about this. Leave the 10 year public copyright in place, so that after 10 years people can access works without the threats of fines and jail. But leave a law in place that states anyone making money from a work must pay the artist for his/her lifetime. If that were in place, P2P could legitamately work, or at least moreso then now. Recent works would be protected by law and could possibly be filtered, since a 10 year list would be much easier to filter then a 100 year list. But people sharing public domain works for free would be clear to do so. And people selling public domain works would still have to pay the artists. Everyone wins. As for books, Project Gutenburg would benefit greatly from a 10 year copyright. One of the issues they face now is that they can only put books published before 1923 (with some complications) online. Imagine being able to download "The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy", or "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" without being called a pirate. But reading a book on a computer is a little difficult and not as convenient as a real book. So in that case, people could download for free, or pay for a real book and pay the artist, and all the while be a good law abiding citizen. This is just one idea. I'm sure there are many others that would work much better to protect the artists then what's in place now. Actually...lets switch gears for a moment. Imagine being able to download "Star Wars" or "The Exorcist" without being called a pirate. People would still buy the DVDs, with all the extra features and all of George's "improvments". But there would be no restrictions from just downloading and watching a movie. And we wouldn't have to sit through commercials saying that pirates hurt the camera men and stage hands. I can imagine a much better world then the one we live in now...if it weren't for corporation getting too greedy...
Just want to ask...how long should you profit? I mean, if this is all for profit, how long do you deserve it. You can't have it forever, because then what incentive do you have? You can write one book, and if you have a copyright forever then you wouldn't ever have to write another book if there were forever copyrights. And then the world who be without your brilliant creativity, because you're living the high life off of one book. Not to mention your kids becoming little spoiled brats because they never have to work a day in their lives because they're sill making money off of your one book. So that can't work. How about your lifetime? Sounds good, but it's as bad as forever. What incentive would you have if you only ever had to write one book and live the high life for the rest of your existance? So that can't work either?
So how about a fixed amount of time? What is it today? 150 years? No no no...that's as bad as your lifetime. Lets bring that down a little. How about 75 years, like it was originally? Is making money off your book for 75 years good? For me, that's still too long, because you'll more then likely write your book in your mid 20s, maybe early 30s. So that means you'll make money off it until for 100. Most likely you'll die far before that due to an excessive lifestyle brought on by your success. So that's not good.
So how about this...make copyrights 10 years. You'll make money for 10 years. But that means you'll have to create something else in order to keep making money. Not only that, but those of us that waited the 10 years to finally read your book because we couldn't afford it before will finally get to read it legally. Millions will benefit from reading your book for free. Your work will become public domain, and hence owned by everyone. You will add your great existance to the world through your book, because everyone is allowed to read it.
Now if you could just get rid of those darned libraries that flagrantly disregard copyright by buying your book and letting ANYONE read it for free. Not to mention finding a way to keep those pesky freeloaders from "borrowing" your book from their friends. Then you'd have quite the system, wouldn't you?
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.
And isn't that the whole problem right there? The publishers are trying to change the rules in their favour, while leaving their customers with few alternatives. There are a set of rules that allows the publisher to get paid (CD levies, store levies, etc), to cover "losses" from people copying things. In return, people were given the right to make back ups of their purchases. This was the "Fair Use" clause. While it does allow for some people to make illegal backups, for the most part people stayed within the law. Now that the publishers have found a new enemy to blame all their woes on (P2P), they are systematically removing fair use rights, while still holding on to their money paid from the levies. What will be left is a system where people will be paying 3 or 4 times for the same item, and if it is lost or broken then they have to pay 3 or 4 times again for that item. Their rights to back up what they bought have been taken away. Whether you like this or not doesn't matter. In time, the whole system will crumble under it's own weight. People will spend less money on those items, because the value/price ratio will be so far out of whack. The whole exercise of trying to "save themselves" will ultimately be the publishers downfall. While this idea doesn't make me sad, what does make me sad is that customer rights will practically be non-existant by that time.
If you were an artist and some store was playing your CD over and over wouldn't you want to be recompensed in some way?
Ok...lets say you are that artist. Did the store in question pay for your CD when they bought it? Yes? Then STFU...you got paid. Now you just want to be paid again for someone adverising your CD in their establishment. Funny...I would have thought free advertising would be welcomed by artists. It's not as if they are burning copies in the back and handing them out to everyone. They are simply playing it. YOU should probably pay the store owner for playing your CD in their store. Because it's not like you are the only one with a CD out, and I'm sure someone would appreciate the free advertising...
Some of those hard drives can hold up to 80MB of data.. holy crap.. think of what you could do with 80,000,000 bytes of space... it hurts to even think about it...
Shhhhh...don't let Sam Raimi hear that. He'll be heartbroken!
It's sad to see that bartering and negotiation is a lost art. If I go to a car lot, and tell them I'd like to buy a car, I can ask that they lower their asking price. If they don't, I say goodbye and they lose a sale to the competition. That's the power of capitalism. You can ask whatever the hell you want for a product, and I can refuse that price and find something else. That's what the RIAA is finding out right now. They can ask whatever price they want for music, but if people don't want to pay they won't. I'm not saying that the whole downloading debacle is right...just that it's a byproduct of the RIAA's own doing...
Bud...then you're limiting your speed and power right there. AMD systems are quite stable from my experience. Usually, it's when people buy bad equipment to surround their chip that causes them to think the chip is bad. Such as my own recent stablitily problems. After replacing the CPU fan and heatsink, replacing the power supply, and very nearly sinking $300 into a water-cooling system because I thought the chip was over heating, I spent $25 on a memory heatsink. Haven't had a single problem with unstablity since. And believe me...this system holds it's own against the hot and heavy Intel systems that are rated at several hundred Megahertz faster...
And don't forget to paint it with rocket fuel...
And I'd personally like to say: FUCK YOU, you self-righteous bastard. Not ONCE did I ever think I was getting anything in return for this. And I especially didn't expect to get a good fuck out of the mother for it. I did this, because it was the only way I could give this kid what he wanted. I did this to spare his mother from hearing him ask "If I'm really really good, can I get this game for my birthday?", and then feel guilty if she couldn't. So fuck you. Sometimes there are people who will help without expecting anything in return.
Man...you must be smoking pretty strong stuff to believe that. First off...BONG HITS ARE NOT ILLEGAL! What could be illegal is what's in the bowl. But the actual device itself isn't. At least in some part of the US and most of Canada. There were some strange incidents, like the owner of Chills Cigarette Papers being arrested for "manufacturing drug paraphernalia." And then there was the arrest of Tommy Chong. Christ...who couldn't see THAT one coming. But still, is it necessary? No...pipes and papers could be used for many other things...
The other thing is, and I know this from great experience, you don't need a bong to smoke. Or at least a store-bought bong. Bongs can be made out of a great number of things, all of which look inconspicuous. Besides that, you can use papers to roll a joint; use a regular tobacco pipe; set it on fire and put a bottle with the bottom cut off over it; create a lung with a pop bottle, some tape, an empty bread bag, and a piece of tin foil; you could make a gravity bong with a pop bottle, a bucket, and a piece of tin foil...I could go on, but you get the point. There are a great number of ways to smoke pot. And many don't even require walking into a store...
I'll agree with that. I'd rather see him out in the woods learning things. But where they are living, it makes me feel a lot better knowing he's at home playing video games then out on the street steal cars and getting into gang fights...
I'll agree, but even for those who pirate there are various reasons why. I'm not saying they are good reasons, but still. A friend of mine has a son. She doesn't have a lot of money, but she gives her kids everything she can. That included the PSX and a bunch of games and such for Christmas. The only problem was that after Christmas, there's not much money left for games. So the following Christmas, I decided to do them both a favour. About 2 weeks before Christmas, I took his PSX and installed a mod chip. For Christmas, I gave him three copied games, and told him that I could get him more. This kid was so excited he was in tears. It meant that he got to play all the games he wanted. And it meant even more to his mother, who was thankful she didn't have to worry about spending $60 on one game. Instead she could use the money to buy food and clothes for the kids. And it made me feel good, because I helped out a family that didn't get a lot of nice things.
Now I will say that yes, I do know that it's illegal. I don't kid myself by thinking "well, it's for a good cause, so it's OK". And that it probably wasn't the best morality lesson to teach the kid. But you know what...sometimes the moral thing to do isn't the best thing to do. So what....one kid who wasn't born to rich parents gets to enjoy his childhood a little more. I don't feel guilty about giving him that pleasure. Maybe that say more about society then piracy...
What's funnier is that I'll probably get modded Off-Topic for this post...