Not only that, but typically the artists actually owe money to the record company for the recording, unless they are a huge success. Getting signed to a label is basically getting approved for a high-risk loan, except that you don't get to control the money you borrow, they take their money before it gets to you, and they get to keep the collateral (copyright) even after you do pay them back.
It would be a whole lot better for an artist to just get a loan from a bank and pay for the recording and promotion themself. Unfortunately (or fortunately for other customers), they're not likely to get approved for such a large loan (>$100K-$1M) with little or no collateral.
Because it's not clear that any criminal copyright violation is going on. The criminal version was written to stop people from profiting from others work, i.e., ripping a CD and making it look like an original, sell it to the public who think it's an original, and keep all the profit yourself. File sharing for personal use does not meet the intended goal of the criminal version. It may be arguable that technically it does meet the legal requirements, though as far as I know this hasn't been tested in court.
The civil version, on the other hand, is quite obviously violated. Plus the burden of proof in civil court is easier. Plus the RIAA gets some money out of it (maybe not a lot) and they don't in a criminal trial. Plus they don't have any direct control over prosecutors for either deciding to lay charges or how the case is argued or won. Plus, I think they want most of these cases settled out of court anyway.
Possibly more reasons, but I think that's pleanty.
If my stuff was being illegally pirated by thieves
As opposed to being legally pirated by thieves? Well, you got 1/2 out of 3 right. Piracy and theft (and stealing in general) are significantly different from copyright violation, and the illegality of downloading copyrighted songs is only true in some juristictions (e.g., it's legal in Canada). So your point is a non-sequitor since it doesn't really apply to the discussion at hand.
Then you and I have a very different definition of skill. Education is, by definition, a skill. From Merriam-Webster dictionary:
skill: a learned power of doing something competently
While one may argue/joke about the competency of PhDs, they must be competent enough to pass the requirements (courses, exams, thesis defense, etc.). The higher your education, the more skilled you are.
A bus driver can learn to be one in a very short time, certainly a lot shorter than it takes to learn the skills required for a PhD.
What you are arguing about is demand, not skill. There may be more demand for bus drivers than Political Science PhDs, but they certainly aren't more skilled in any sense of the word I can think of.
Well, you've got some good points about comparing skills. But I think it's quite apparent that a PhD is more skilled than a bus driver (assume equal experience here), yet some bus drivers make more.
I agree with your take on unions, particularly how they should be and how they can muck things up when used improperly (as they often are). However, I'm not sure how they could really fit in a purely free market system, at least in respect to rewards (salaries). Free market, to me, means every person must be treated as a separate individual and hence is inconsistent with the union concept. (For other purposes like safety concerns, joint medical plans, etc., I can see how unions can fit in a free market.)
I don't know where you've been the last 20 years, but "equal pay for equal work" has been used extensively by unions for getting equal pay for jobs that are of "equal value", not necessarily the same job. For example, the Canadian government has had to create a ranking system of jobs for pay scale so that two completely different jobs may be ranked the same in value.
The free market does do a reasonably good job of basing pay on skill and performance.
I disagree. Sports and entertainment are a clear example. (Sure some are talented, some are not, but are they really 100 times more skilled at their jobs than I am at mine?) There are tons of other examples where tradespeople (with a 2 year diploma) make more than a PhD, or similar. There are mostly due to supply and demand cases. Even bus drivers (with no post-secondary degrees) make more than highly skilled labour. Part of it is supply and demand (free market), part of it is unionization (not free market).
In the end, I'd say supply and demand, rather than skill and performance, is the primary indicator of reward. This works for sports and entertainment as well.
And for those of you that say it's for portable devices, It's not too unreasonable to get a portable player that plays high streaming VBR mp3s with some nice ~$100-$150 headphones.
For my purposes, that would be a huge waste of money. I use my Nomad II when biking or inline skating. Even if I bought the best portable equipment available, it wouldn't sound any better because of ambient noise from traffic and other sources.
Before somebody says something about getting equipment (e.g., headphones) that tune out the ambient noise, be aware that I want the ambient noise. I want to hear when cars are approaching, or bike bells on the paths, or somebody yelling "watch out". In this usage, I'm not listening to the music to hear the fidelity of each instrument or marvel at the subtle sound engineering genius. It's more important for me to get as many songs as possible on the player (of reasonable quality), not to get the highest quality. Further to the point, why waste the money on more expensive players and headphones when it won't sound any better in the end. I'm not made of money.
Yes, I do like to sit down in my livingroom and listen to a high quality recording, and for that I'd use high quality compression (if any). That's why I often have several versions of songs at various bitrates and formats. What many audiophiles seem to miss is that there are often times when such high quality is not required and file size is more important.
The problem is that we live in a society where reward is not (often) based on skill. In a free market society (and I use that term loosely), reward is essentially based on what you can sell, which often means the best marketing.
The idea of equal pay for equal work is a more socialist and even communist ideology. On the other hand, socialism also often strays from reward based on performance. For example, unionized employees typically make the same pay regardless of whether they're a keener or a slacker. In a free market you can make your case for getting a raise based on your performance.
So, while I agree that reward should generally be based on skill (education, abilities) and performance (good work ethic, do a fantastic job), there doesn't seem to be a socio-economical model that does this well. Given the current models, I'd still stick with free market but with a touch of socialism.
These "patants" you speak of sound suspiciously similar to "patents". I wonder if that could be a trademark violation, like selling a "Rolax" instead of "Rolex".
Re:Think I'll lose my mind if I don't find somethi
on
RFID Hell
·
· Score: 1
Although I often think people are too paranoid, there's no need for paranoia in this case. While not Gattaca, the bleak Orwellien future is already here, at least partially. To name a few: citizens stripped of many rights (Patriot Act), Corporations controlling the law (DMCA), and blatant "legal" violations of the princples of the Geneva Convention and U.S. Constatution (prisoners held indefinitely without trial at Guantanamo Bay).
The bleak future has already arrived in many ways, my friend.
I don't think so. Though they didn't make it clear, both battery powered and fuel cell powered vehicles use the exact same propulsion systems (electric motors). It's just the source of the electricity that is (slightly) different.
Internal combustion engines, on the other hand, are a completely different kettle of fish. (Actually, I doubt a kettle of fish would get you very far.)
What I found more interesting at the end of the article was the link to the Stupid Security Contest winners. My favorite winner is the Gunpowder Tea one because you think you know the outcome, but then it becomes even more baffling.
And you were using 'peacekeeper' to insinuate nonviolence.
Excuse me? When did I say anything about non-violence. I said peace-keeping. Apparently you aren't aware of what that means. It's like policing -- breaking up fights (ok, with armoured vehicles), arresting, patroling, etc. Try doing police work without violence.
You put up the definition of 'peace', and nowhere in it did I see a reference to using force, or violence.
It also doesn't contain a reference to a good hummus recipe. So what? If you hadn't noticed, it was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the U.S.'s reputation for invading other countries, particularly the current situation in Iraq, and hence not understanding the concept of peace. Emphasis is on the tongue-in-cheek.
That doesn't mean there isn't some validity to the reputation, as shown by the fact that you immediately attacked the idea of using military for peaceful purposes (including maintaining the peace).
None of the countries you listed were attacked in order to "free" the people.
Noriega (Panama) was taken out because of drug trafficking and money laundering. In other words, U.S. self-interest.
The Taliban in Afghanistan were attacked in response to 9/11 because the Taliban supported, helped trained, and harbored terrorists, terrorist groups, and particularly Al Quieda and Bin Laden. It was certainly a justifiable attack, and supported by many countries including Canada, but certainly wasn't about "freeing" people.
As already stated, Iraq was attacked for so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction. Yet again, U.S. self-interest and nothing to do with "freeing" people.
The Korean War was started by an attack from North Korean on South Korea, which was partially occupied by the U.S. at the time. It wasn't started by the U.S. to free South Koreans from anyone. And that was a UN initiative, supported by many countries including Canada.
Assuming you mean France in WWII, the U.S. didn't join WWII until two years into it when it was attacked at Pearl Harbour. Once again, supported by many countries including Canada. And again, this was repelling an invading force, not "freeing" citizens from an oppressive regime.
You can claim all you want about U.S. "freeing" people, but the fact of the matter is you can't provide a single example where the U.S. has gone into a country to remove an oppressive regime with the goal of freeing the people of the world. When it comes to military intervention, the U.S. talks big about freedoms but acts in its own self interest.
That isn't to say the the U.S. doesn't do anything to help bring freedom and democracy to the world (as do many other countries), but that is almost always diplomatic rather than military.
I also understand that under the Canadian Privacy Act, ISPs are forbidden from disclosing client information without a legally obtained supeona, which in Canada means judicial oversight. However, IANAL, I haven't researched this (although I planned to), and this is a third-hand account of the law (as a friend saw in a news report). No time to check this now, maybe later if nobody else has.
If true, that doesn't mean you can't be spanked for violations. But music organizations have to go through all the legal hoops to get there and ISPs can't rat you out even if they wanted to.
I don't think you can recharge a fuel cell though.. which sucks
Actually, that's essentially what makes a fuel cell different from a battery. You just keep supplying fuel to the fuel cell and it keeps producing electricity. So, no, you can "recharge" them as in rechargeable batteries. You "re-fuel" them like you do with your car. The most likely way that will happen for consumer electronics is buying hydrogen cartridges. Whether or not that is cheaper than the electricity you use to recharge batteries now or not will be a matter of economics that aren't yet completely worked out.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I think Bush is an idiot and his administration is the greatest danger to peace and freedom the world has seen in a long time. But that's for perfectly rational factual reasons, there's no need to bend the facts for that. I just noticed an error in the article, that's all.
And what do they 'enforce the peace' with? Flowers?
Hello? Can you read? Read the sentence you quoted again. See the second last word: armed. In your rant you are confusing (or intentionally mixing) two different concepts, the definition of a military and their use. A military is an armed force, as I said and you seem to have ignored (and then re-stated yourself).
But you then assume that being armed is synonymous with attacking people or countries. The military can be used for homeland defense, defence of another party, policing, peacekeeping, and yes, even offensive uses which might include attacking agressors, attacking oppressors, attacking helpless people, attacking for conquest (land or items of value like oil), attacking to implement political power, attacking to create fear, or a variety of other reasons.
It seems all you associate militaries with is attacking other people. Peacekeeping, defense, and policing are legitimate uses of military, and most would agree is more civilized uses. The fact that you don't understand the concept of what peacekeeping is and what they do, and that militaries are only for attacking people, is exactly the type of attitude that most of the world despises and refers to as "warmongering".
Doesn't sound like any of the things our (America's) enemies stand for
That's a circular argument. You've already defined them as enemies. Many of America's "friends" are worse than their enemies, an America rarely attacks to "free" people. If you recall, the justification for Iraq was (quite possibly non-existant) WMDs. Saddam is not even close to the worst leader in the world as far as attrocities. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's about "freeing" them. How many countries that America has attacked has welcomed them with open arms and thanked the U.S. for "freeing" them?
Funny, I don't see anything in your definition pertaining to attacking people either. You definition only refers to their organization and equipment. It doesn't say how they are to be used. Enforcing peace is one use of armed forces.
In the case, the article was trying to compare apples to oranges.
Yes, but you completely missed the comparison in the other direction. Supposing your numbers are all correct. Then, as you say, DVDs wouldn't be able to cover the costs of the $120M without the theatre ticket sales.
But it doesn't cost $120M to record an album. Depending on the artist and label, mainstream recordings usually run in the range of several hundred thousand to several million.
Using your example, the DVD sales should at least cover the $20M you said it would take to make the DVD (otherwise, why would they bother). Actually, you claim that DVD sales at $10 would "barely cover the cost of making it" ($120M), but I'll be conservative and say they only cover the $20M required to convert to DVD.
Then to recover the ~$1M to record the CD, they should charge about 1/20th what they do for DVDs, by your own numbers.
Yes, but their primary role for some time has been peace-keeping.
Whoops, sorry. Forgot about the language barrier. For you Americans:
peace ['pEs] noun. 1 : a state of tranquillity or quiet: as a : freedom from civil disturbance b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom ,
2 : freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions,
3 : harmony in personal relations,
4 a : a state or period of mutual concord between governments b : a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity,
5 -- used interjectionally to ask for silence or calm or as a greeting or farewell
...talented foreign students are being denied visas (approximately 20%, according to one source in the article)
Actually, the article says that 20% of accepted foreign students in physics "...had problems entering the country last year". It doesn't say they've been denied visas. It also doesn't say what constitutes "problems", and what percent normally had trouble before 9/11. They all may have made it in, just with some troubles.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but typically the artists actually owe money to the record company for the recording, unless they are a huge success. Getting signed to a label is basically getting approved for a high-risk loan, except that you don't get to control the money you borrow, they take their money before it gets to you, and they get to keep the collateral (copyright) even after you do pay them back. It would be a whole lot better for an artist to just get a loan from a bank and pay for the recording and promotion themself. Unfortunately (or fortunately for other customers), they're not likely to get approved for such a large loan (>$100K-$1M) with little or no collateral.
The civil version, on the other hand, is quite obviously violated. Plus the burden of proof in civil court is easier. Plus the RIAA gets some money out of it (maybe not a lot) and they don't in a criminal trial. Plus they don't have any direct control over prosecutors for either deciding to lay charges or how the case is argued or won. Plus, I think they want most of these cases settled out of court anyway.
Possibly more reasons, but I think that's pleanty.
As opposed to being legally pirated by thieves? Well, you got 1/2 out of 3 right. Piracy and theft (and stealing in general) are significantly different from copyright violation, and the illegality of downloading copyrighted songs is only true in some juristictions (e.g., it's legal in Canada). So your point is a non-sequitor since it doesn't really apply to the discussion at hand.
Then you and I have a very different definition of skill. Education is, by definition, a skill. From Merriam-Webster dictionary:
skill: a learned power of doing something competently
While one may argue/joke about the competency of PhDs, they must be competent enough to pass the requirements (courses, exams, thesis defense, etc.). The higher your education, the more skilled you are.
A bus driver can learn to be one in a very short time, certainly a lot shorter than it takes to learn the skills required for a PhD.
What you are arguing about is demand, not skill. There may be more demand for bus drivers than Political Science PhDs, but they certainly aren't more skilled in any sense of the word I can think of.
I agree with your take on unions, particularly how they should be and how they can muck things up when used improperly (as they often are). However, I'm not sure how they could really fit in a purely free market system, at least in respect to rewards (salaries). Free market, to me, means every person must be treated as a separate individual and hence is inconsistent with the union concept. (For other purposes like safety concerns, joint medical plans, etc., I can see how unions can fit in a free market.)
I disagree. Sports and entertainment are a clear example. (Sure some are talented, some are not, but are they really 100 times more skilled at their jobs than I am at mine?) There are tons of other examples where tradespeople (with a 2 year diploma) make more than a PhD, or similar. There are mostly due to supply and demand cases. Even bus drivers (with no post-secondary degrees) make more than highly skilled labour. Part of it is supply and demand (free market), part of it is unionization (not free market).
In the end, I'd say supply and demand, rather than skill and performance, is the primary indicator of reward. This works for sports and entertainment as well.
For my purposes, that would be a huge waste of money. I use my Nomad II when biking or inline skating. Even if I bought the best portable equipment available, it wouldn't sound any better because of ambient noise from traffic and other sources.
Before somebody says something about getting equipment (e.g., headphones) that tune out the ambient noise, be aware that I want the ambient noise. I want to hear when cars are approaching, or bike bells on the paths, or somebody yelling "watch out". In this usage, I'm not listening to the music to hear the fidelity of each instrument or marvel at the subtle sound engineering genius. It's more important for me to get as many songs as possible on the player (of reasonable quality), not to get the highest quality. Further to the point, why waste the money on more expensive players and headphones when it won't sound any better in the end. I'm not made of money.
Yes, I do like to sit down in my livingroom and listen to a high quality recording, and for that I'd use high quality compression (if any). That's why I often have several versions of songs at various bitrates and formats. What many audiophiles seem to miss is that there are often times when such high quality is not required and file size is more important.
The idea of equal pay for equal work is a more socialist and even communist ideology. On the other hand, socialism also often strays from reward based on performance. For example, unionized employees typically make the same pay regardless of whether they're a keener or a slacker. In a free market you can make your case for getting a raise based on your performance.
So, while I agree that reward should generally be based on skill (education, abilities) and performance (good work ethic, do a fantastic job), there doesn't seem to be a socio-economical model that does this well. Given the current models, I'd still stick with free market but with a touch of socialism.
These "patants" you speak of sound suspiciously similar to "patents". I wonder if that could be a trademark violation, like selling a "Rolax" instead of "Rolex".
The bleak future has already arrived in many ways, my friend.
I don't think so. Though they didn't make it clear, both battery powered and fuel cell powered vehicles use the exact same propulsion systems (electric motors). It's just the source of the electricity that is (slightly) different.
Internal combustion engines, on the other hand, are a completely different kettle of fish. (Actually, I doubt a kettle of fish would get you very far.)
What I found more interesting at the end of the article was the link to the Stupid Security Contest winners. My favorite winner is the Gunpowder Tea one because you think you know the outcome, but then it becomes even more baffling.
Excuse me? When did I say anything about non-violence. I said peace-keeping. Apparently you aren't aware of what that means. It's like policing -- breaking up fights (ok, with armoured vehicles), arresting, patroling, etc. Try doing police work without violence.
You put up the definition of 'peace', and nowhere in it did I see a reference to using force, or violence.
It also doesn't contain a reference to a good hummus recipe. So what? If you hadn't noticed, it was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the U.S.'s reputation for invading other countries, particularly the current situation in Iraq, and hence not understanding the concept of peace. Emphasis is on the tongue-in-cheek.
That doesn't mean there isn't some validity to the reputation, as shown by the fact that you immediately attacked the idea of using military for peaceful purposes (including maintaining the peace).
Noriega (Panama) was taken out because of drug trafficking and money laundering. In other words, U.S. self-interest.
The Taliban in Afghanistan were attacked in response to 9/11 because the Taliban supported, helped trained, and harbored terrorists, terrorist groups, and particularly Al Quieda and Bin Laden. It was certainly a justifiable attack, and supported by many countries including Canada, but certainly wasn't about "freeing" people.
As already stated, Iraq was attacked for so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction. Yet again, U.S. self-interest and nothing to do with "freeing" people.
The Korean War was started by an attack from North Korean on South Korea, which was partially occupied by the U.S. at the time. It wasn't started by the U.S. to free South Koreans from anyone. And that was a UN initiative, supported by many countries including Canada.
Assuming you mean France in WWII, the U.S. didn't join WWII until two years into it when it was attacked at Pearl Harbour. Once again, supported by many countries including Canada. And again, this was repelling an invading force, not "freeing" citizens from an oppressive regime.
You can claim all you want about U.S. "freeing" people, but the fact of the matter is you can't provide a single example where the U.S. has gone into a country to remove an oppressive regime with the goal of freeing the people of the world. When it comes to military intervention, the U.S. talks big about freedoms but acts in its own self interest.
That isn't to say the the U.S. doesn't do anything to help bring freedom and democracy to the world (as do many other countries), but that is almost always diplomatic rather than military.
If true, that doesn't mean you can't be spanked for violations. But music organizations have to go through all the legal hoops to get there and ISPs can't rat you out even if they wanted to.
Actually, that's essentially what makes a fuel cell different from a battery. You just keep supplying fuel to the fuel cell and it keeps producing electricity. So, no, you can "recharge" them as in rechargeable batteries. You "re-fuel" them like you do with your car. The most likely way that will happen for consumer electronics is buying hydrogen cartridges. Whether or not that is cheaper than the electricity you use to recharge batteries now or not will be a matter of economics that aren't yet completely worked out.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I think Bush is an idiot and his administration is the greatest danger to peace and freedom the world has seen in a long time. But that's for perfectly rational factual reasons, there's no need to bend the facts for that. I just noticed an error in the article, that's all.
But you then assume that being armed is synonymous with attacking people or countries. The military can be used for homeland defense, defence of another party, policing, peacekeeping, and yes, even offensive uses which might include attacking agressors, attacking oppressors, attacking helpless people, attacking for conquest (land or items of value like oil), attacking to implement political power, attacking to create fear, or a variety of other reasons.
It seems all you associate militaries with is attacking other people. Peacekeeping, defense, and policing are legitimate uses of military, and most would agree is more civilized uses. The fact that you don't understand the concept of what peacekeeping is and what they do, and that militaries are only for attacking people, is exactly the type of attitude that most of the world despises and refers to as "warmongering".
That's a circular argument. You've already defined them as enemies. Many of America's "friends" are worse than their enemies, an America rarely attacks to "free" people. If you recall, the justification for Iraq was (quite possibly non-existant) WMDs. Saddam is not even close to the worst leader in the world as far as attrocities. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's about "freeing" them. How many countries that America has attacked has welcomed them with open arms and thanked the U.S. for "freeing" them?
You are a true child of propaganda.
Funny, I don't see anything in your definition pertaining to attacking people either. You definition only refers to their organization and equipment. It doesn't say how they are to be used. Enforcing peace is one use of armed forces.
I'm not sure about definition, but apparently the U.S. seems to think we (Canada) care too much about those sorts of things.
Yes, but you completely missed the comparison in the other direction. Supposing your numbers are all correct. Then, as you say, DVDs wouldn't be able to cover the costs of the $120M without the theatre ticket sales.
But it doesn't cost $120M to record an album. Depending on the artist and label, mainstream recordings usually run in the range of several hundred thousand to several million.
Using your example, the DVD sales should at least cover the $20M you said it would take to make the DVD (otherwise, why would they bother). Actually, you claim that DVD sales at $10 would "barely cover the cost of making it" ($120M), but I'll be conservative and say they only cover the $20M required to convert to DVD.
Then to recover the ~$1M to record the CD, they should charge about 1/20th what they do for DVDs, by your own numbers.
Oops. In my last post I forgot to mention their other main duty.
Yes, but their primary role for some time has been peace-keeping.
Whoops, sorry. Forgot about the language barrier. For you Americans:
peace ['pEs] noun. 1 : a state of tranquillity or quiet: as a : freedom from civil disturbance b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom , 2 : freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions, 3 : harmony in personal relations, 4 a : a state or period of mutual concord between governments b : a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, 5 -- used interjectionally to ask for silence or calm or as a greeting or farewell
Actually, the article says that 20% of accepted foreign students in physics "...had problems entering the country last year". It doesn't say they've been denied visas. It also doesn't say what constitutes "problems", and what percent normally had trouble before 9/11. They all may have made it in, just with some troubles.