You've convinced me. See, I thought this insane idea was only going to apply to works that are currently sold commercially.
Now that I realize you're also going to force me to license to anyone who wants it every email message I write, any digital picture I take, any document I create on my computer, etc., I'm all for this idea.
Just think of all the money in micropayments school children can make when pedophiles download their daily schedules and photos of their friends, which they're forced to license.
Then stop buying it, and they'll go out of business.
Oh, you say a vast majority of music purchasers do want to buy what they're selling, and have no interest whatsoever in the indy music you'd be selling at your new label? Well I'm sure your business plan will find a way to compensate for that fact.
If RIAA was really behind this guy, there's no way he'd have said that it might be reasonable to charge less than they're getting now for the less popular music, just that they should charge more for more popular music. The less popular music under their preferred system would stay at 99 cents. Or, more likely, $2, with popular pop songs going for $50.
He's got a really stupid idea, but it's not evil at the same time.
I agree. After 9/11, irony is dead, and all satire and sarcasm should be confined to April 1.
I propose a Constitutional amendement banning satire for the other 364 days of the year. Won't someone please think of the Children?! And the humorless people?
Yes, but it's a lot easier to argue that humans have a right to protection from dying of starvation or disease than it is to argue for a right to be entertained as they see fit. That's what the grandparent poster means by saying there should be a line somewhere.
Not being a loony libertarian myself, I might disagree with where the line should be drawn. The people running the American legislature have never been convinced that the line should be drawn to include healthcare. Plenty of us would be happy to redraw it to include fewer weapons and more medicine. Most people who travel anywhere are happy to have a tax-funded highway system. Very few, I suspect, would be inclined to extend the line to include music and movies.
If it's worth less that $100, then you won't pay it. You'll simpyl do without broadband internet.
Great. So I can't read my email, shop at Amazon, or access my university library from home because I don't want copyrighted content?
The Internet doesn't exist simply for people to download copyrighted content. The fact that a huge amount of bandwidth is currently used to do so illegally doesn't mean that anyone using it for other purposes should be forced to subsidize media junkies and pirates.
To be fair, people without faith are unlikely to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, or to follow the first 2 commandments (depending on how you divide them), which basically demand faith.
But yes, it's fairly ridiculous to claim that you can't live morally without faith in a higher power, or that people who don't live morally can't have (albeit probably hypocritically) faith. You don't have to believe you'll be burned in Hell eternally for doing so to recognize that it's not very nice to steal from people or kill them.
Yes, but I don't want to pay to be "entitled" to download content I don't want.
Lets say all of the content creators right now are getting $100 from the average person per year. Under your proposal, for the creators to get the same amount under the new system, each person would have to pay a $100 tax to entitle them to download as much as they want.
It doesn't take a PhD in mathematics to figure out that people who are paying less than the average amount for content now are going to get screwed, and people who are paying more (or, for that matter, paying nothing but still taking materials that they're not entitled to now) come out ahead.
If I consume $10 worth of content, why should I pay $100 to subsidize the people who buy or "share" $1000 worth of content?
And in a world where people don't think it's fair to have to pay taxes to try to keep desperately poor people at some minimum standard of living, what makes you think there will ever be widespread support for forced subsidization of entertainment for people who can already afford a computer and Internet access?
The objection is that people who "share" little or no copyrighted music/text/video would be forced, under your plan to subsidize those who "share" lots and lots of materials.
I'm happy to pay the distributors for the few songs I want to download to put on my iPod (most of what's on there I ripped from my own CD collection, which stopped growing years ago. I have no real desire to have very much new music); I don't want to pay for every teen in the country to fill their own with 4000 crappy pop songs and to download every new movie that comes out of Hollywood.
Why don't you try working 18 hour days for a month withoutcaffeine, and then come back and tell us if you really think it was the caffeine that wasn't doing your body any good.
The only interface for assigning keywords is a multiple-checkbox window
Not true. Click the little key icon on the bottom left, and now you can drag images to buttons with the keywords on them.
Note that this is even more of a pain in the ass than the multiple-checkbox window, particularly if you use more keywords than there is room for in the panel that displays the buttons.
But at least it's another interface. And if you're only assigning one keyword to a whole bunch of photos, it works fairly well.
Until there's Picase for Mac or Aperture for Windows, I'm not sure your complaint that the two tools seem to do the same thing makes any sense. Is someone going to provide me with a free Windows machine and pay me for the inconvenience of running Windows instead of OS X if I use Picasa?
Since you can't copyright anything with the USPTO, the answer to your question is no.
You're also seriously deluded if you think you can sue someone under the DMCA or any other law for taking actions that stopped illegal activities you were knowingly committing, and didn't cause you any harm in the process.
That's like saying it would be perfectly OK if the government made it illegal for me to be naked in my own home, because they'd never be able to enforce the law.
A restriction that's not enforced or one that's in fact unenforceable is still a restriction.
Well, if the DRM is built into the OS and the hardware, obviously Microsoft isn't going to be colluding with the studios/record labels to look the other way when they install their own, competing DRM that looks like a virus.
They're a lot more likely to try to force the studios to license the built-in DRM and remove the third party DRM with their anti-virus tool.
Do you really think that they'd want Apple's Fairplay on Windows machines if it acted like a virus, when declaring it harmful and pushing DRMed WMA on everyone would make them look like the good guys?
Please at least try to be rational with your hatred. RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft may all practice shady business techniques, but they're all looking out for their own interests, not banding together to screw the consumer regardless of whether it's profitable to themselves.
Did Microsoft become a movie studio when I wasn't looking, or do you just assume that any member of the class of "evil corporations hated by the average Slashdotter" is automatically in collusion with all of the other members?
Slashdot Mirror
Now that I realize you're also going to force me to license to anyone who wants it every email message I write, any digital picture I take, any document I create on my computer, etc., I'm all for this idea.
Just think of all the money in micropayments school children can make when pedophiles download their daily schedules and photos of their friends, which they're forced to license.
You, sir, are a genius!
Then stop buying it, and they'll go out of business.
Oh, you say a vast majority of music purchasers do want to buy what they're selling, and have no interest whatsoever in the indy music you'd be selling at your new label? Well I'm sure your business plan will find a way to compensate for that fact.
He's got a really stupid idea, but it's not evil at the same time.
I propose a Constitutional amendement banning satire for the other 364 days of the year. Won't someone please think of the Children?! And the humorless people?
Not being a loony libertarian myself, I might disagree with where the line should be drawn. The people running the American legislature have never been convinced that the line should be drawn to include healthcare. Plenty of us would be happy to redraw it to include fewer weapons and more medicine. Most people who travel anywhere are happy to have a tax-funded highway system. Very few, I suspect, would be inclined to extend the line to include music and movies.
Great. So I can't read my email, shop at Amazon, or access my university library from home because I don't want copyrighted content?
The Internet doesn't exist simply for people to download copyrighted content. The fact that a huge amount of bandwidth is currently used to do so illegally doesn't mean that anyone using it for other purposes should be forced to subsidize media junkies and pirates.
But yes, it's fairly ridiculous to claim that you can't live morally without faith in a higher power, or that people who don't live morally can't have (albeit probably hypocritically) faith. You don't have to believe you'll be burned in Hell eternally for doing so to recognize that it's not very nice to steal from people or kill them.
Lets say all of the content creators right now are getting $100 from the average person per year. Under your proposal, for the creators to get the same amount under the new system, each person would have to pay a $100 tax to entitle them to download as much as they want.
It doesn't take a PhD in mathematics to figure out that people who are paying less than the average amount for content now are going to get screwed, and people who are paying more (or, for that matter, paying nothing but still taking materials that they're not entitled to now) come out ahead.
If I consume $10 worth of content, why should I pay $100 to subsidize the people who buy or "share" $1000 worth of content?
And in a world where people don't think it's fair to have to pay taxes to try to keep desperately poor people at some minimum standard of living, what makes you think there will ever be widespread support for forced subsidization of entertainment for people who can already afford a computer and Internet access?
I'm happy to pay the distributors for the few songs I want to download to put on my iPod (most of what's on there I ripped from my own CD collection, which stopped growing years ago. I have no real desire to have very much new music); I don't want to pay for every teen in the country to fill their own with 4000 crappy pop songs and to download every new movie that comes out of Hollywood.
Now where can I get my cheap plastic car body repainted with cheap color-changing paint?
Moderators: grandparent post is Redundant at best, having been posted before.
Why don't you try working 18 hour days for a month withoutcaffeine, and then come back and tell us if you really think it was the caffeine that wasn't doing your body any good.
Not true. Click the little key icon on the bottom left, and now you can drag images to buttons with the keywords on them.
Note that this is even more of a pain in the ass than the multiple-checkbox window, particularly if you use more keywords than there is room for in the panel that displays the buttons.
But at least it's another interface. And if you're only assigning one keyword to a whole bunch of photos, it works fairly well.
Yet, try to argue that your message should contain both of those things, and I'll probably get modded Flamebait.
Until there's Picase for Mac or Aperture for Windows, I'm not sure your complaint that the two tools seem to do the same thing makes any sense. Is someone going to provide me with a free Windows machine and pay me for the inconvenience of running Windows instead of OS X if I use Picasa?
Now that's not fair. My Apple Pro Keyboard's got dozens of buttons on it.
Which would be a great way to lose customers and/or get hit with a massive antitrust lawsuit.
You're also seriously deluded if you think you can sue someone under the DMCA or any other law for taking actions that stopped illegal activities you were knowingly committing, and didn't cause you any harm in the process.
A restriction that's not enforced or one that's in fact unenforceable is still a restriction.
They're a lot more likely to try to force the studios to license the built-in DRM and remove the third party DRM with their anti-virus tool.
Do you really think that they'd want Apple's Fairplay on Windows machines if it acted like a virus, when declaring it harmful and pushing DRMed WMA on everyone would make them look like the good guys?
Please at least try to be rational with your hatred. RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft may all practice shady business techniques, but they're all looking out for their own interests, not banding together to screw the consumer regardless of whether it's profitable to themselves.
Did Microsoft become a movie studio when I wasn't looking, or do you just assume that any member of the class of "evil corporations hated by the average Slashdotter" is automatically in collusion with all of the other members?
Removing viruses is not comparable to tuning for performance. Although your machine will run faster when it's not a spam zombie anymore, I suppose.
I prefer the term "English English", to further distinguish it from any peculiar usages in Wales and Scotland.
So you think the guy from Ohio who posted about marrying cousins at least 3 times is a Southerner, too. I see.
Don't worry, you won't be able to lose it once it's embedded in your forehead and on your arm.