Libraries are socialist institutions that are generally subsidized. In addition, libraries artificially impose scarcity by ensuring that only one person can sign out a book. When it comes to electronic content that can be easily copied, they usually license/purchase it for a ton of money. This is why most people cannot afford to purchase an analyst report on the future market potential of Linux (costs at least $1000) yet you can go to a university library or maybe a very large library system and find it.
Magazines are paid for by advertisers. A book is a better example. Even with a book, the doctor's office (or whoever) pays for the book. I don't have a problem with that. But if they downloaded an electronic book and started passing it off, I would have a problem.
The music industry has lost the curve forever-they are in the past tense. Sony et all will build the price of CD sales they think they lost into the hardware they sell.
My problem is not the studios. I don't care about them. My problem are the artists. Most people who pirate simply don't pay anything for the artists. Yes, some do--but most don't. Why do you think the most downloaded songs/movies/etc are precisely the most popular ones (eg. Britney Spears, Justin Timerlake, P.Diddy, Nelly, etc)?
You are totally missing the parent's point. If I would have otherwise bought the software, yes. For example, if I didn't use gimp, I would probably buy photoshop. But if I use photoshop for a little while anyway, I don't think it is that big of a deal. Pay for what you would have otherwise bought.
The problem with this is that capitalism encourages and rewards greed (yes, I realize capitalists are in total denial over this). So, most people will claim that they really wouldn't have purchased something. I could literally claim that I should pirate every single software because, well, I wasn't going to buy it anyway. I mean, why should I be buying this game for $50 when I'm only playing it for 20 hours? You see this all over the place, including businesses. Many small businesses pirate a lot of software. You can even find the owners justifying it with your reason: "oh, I wasn't using it much and wouldn't have bought it anyway".
If people were honest (or we were practicing another econopolitical system), I would support your position. It is very hard for me to support your position under capitalism.
While it's true that businesses cut corners everywhere they can, I can assure you that some of the first to get the axe will be the higher-ups. If your business starts going down, they don't blame the gaffer. They blame the execs. And anyway, most of the lower-level workers have set wages by guilds/unions, so in the most literal sense, it does not directly cut their wages.
I exaggerated my point a bit and you are doing the same. The executives are generally the ones that are LEAST impacted by this. There are MANY companies that struggle and yet the executives don't feel any pain. Even when they are terminated, they get perks and other compensation that is nowhere near what a lower class worker would get. It is not uncommon for executives to receive hundreads of thousands of dollars for "a job well done" even though they are being terminated. How many lower class workers get any sort of "bonus" for being terminated (other than the usual stuff)? And let's not even get into golden parachutes. Yes, executives get paid MORE for being terminated.
As far as wages being set by unions, well, first of all, this depends what country/region/etc you are in. In the vast majority of the earth's workers have no unions (most workers are in poor countries). In countries like USA, unions aren't that common either. Europe and Canada have quite a lot of unions. In any case, I agree that wages don't go down (economists refer to downward rigidity of wages). However, workers are adversely impacted (relative to executives). Many workers are laid off. Often, those that remain have to do the jobs of 1.5 people (or twice as much in some cases). This rarely ever happens in the senior levels. When was the last time a Controller was eliminated and a Chief Financial Officer ends up doing their work? Not that often. The further up you go, the less you are impacted.
Yes the car example was horrible.. have to come up with something better (thinking of books as an example but will see if there is something better)...
sure, if it is of value to you, and the price doesn't exceed the value. True capitalism.
Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying pirating software (say spreading beta copies or something) is perfectly ok with you? Just like movies?
Since the point is, not all downloads cost the industry money, I'd say it IS the point.
My point takes precedence over your point since it is more relevant. That is, there is a significant chunk of the population who download movies (I had some friends who did that when I was in school). This is more important than your point that other downloads don't cost any money.
In any case, if downloading movies is ok, is downloading software ok with you too?
there is a minimum amount of people they will need to make a movie. Unless Tom Cruise is going to start moving set pieces(haha).
This depends on whether you support capitalism or not. If you don't support capitalism (like me), you can legitimately say that some jobs/people/etc are overpaid. My problem is that most people who make that serious charge are in fact capitalists or quasi-capitalists. There is no basis for them claiming that someone is overpaid. You can't say Bruch Willis is overpaid, just like how you can't say Sam Palmisano (CEO of IBM) is overpaid. Pick one: do you support the notion that some people are overpaid (which is an attack on markets and the heart of capitalism)? Or do you not?
Fact is, if filming movies in a theater would destroy the industries, it would have already been destroyed.
unauthorized people making mass productions and then reselling them is where the loss comes in, not from some smoe filmimg in a theater.
A lot of unauthorized productions come from filming in theaters. I already thought it was illegal film and that's why I was surprised that someone was introducing a bill for it (does that mean it is legal right now). A lot of the pirated films are from in-theater filming. It depends on the cases but in many cases people don't have access to the film (the actual film roll) or have to wait for films to get to Asia (which lags since premieres are in North America).
Could you image seeing one of those records and going "Well I was going to buy this movie, but gosh darn, this horrible copy, with the sound of someone eating popcorn, is much better."?
A true movie fan like me wouldn't go near it at all. But casual fans and others trying to save money will. It's like books. How many people pirate electronic books or something? Someone who is really into books wouldn't download a copy. But someone who can't afford it (say like me who is unemployed:( ) or someone who really isn't into the book, would do it. You can't deny the negative impact of electronic book piracy on the market (but it's just that it is irrelevant right now cuz it isn't there yet. Even the "best" pirated books suck).
When I do use it/listen to it, it's incidental. I couldn't care less. Literally, it's one way or another and I don't care.
If you don't care, why are you even using it? Claiming you don't care while using it is hypocritical.
I actually dont pirate, cause like I said, I don't care. I dont enjoy the media, it's mostly crap. And seperating crap from not is hard.
I think a lot of people who support your view have this notion that some product is either worthy or not. I'm not even a capitalist yet even I can say that there is no such thing as "bad" products. You don't like something? Your product failed? It's a risk you take. You can't buy a house and then return it since it is "crap". Under capitalism, EVERYTHING is worth what the MARKET determines. I could sell sand from Iraq for $100 and if people buy it, it is WORTH it--it certainly isn't "crap".
I am all for enforcing personally made contracts. Most software you pay for you agree to a contract with additional limitations on top of copyright - an EULA. I agree to no such limitations with DVDs, Magazines, or CDs.
hmm... you are not like the rest of the Slashdot crowd, who is generally anti-EULA:)... So, are you saying that you don't support EULAs on DVDs/CDs/books/etc or you wouldn't have a problem if they put an EULA on them? If DVDs/etc started placing additional restrictions, would you be satisfied?
The fact is that there is not much fat that doesn't relate to top stars in a movie. There just isn't. If you want a movie, you need a certain number of people. In a lot of movies that number is as low or damn near as low as possible already. They've been squeezing them for *decades* in case you haven't been paying attention. The only place that hasn't felt the pinch of more movies and less audience is the top tier actors. They will be the first to feel a real pinch.
Again, I'm not going to go into something that simply ignores the tenets of capitalism. You are speculating on the "fat" in the movie industry. I'm anti-capitalist and could care less about capitalism (in fact I think it's going to collapse as Marx predicted), but I have no idea how you can say that some industry does or does not have "fat". Or the popular notion how people are overpaid. There is no such thing as being overpaid under capitalism. If a movie star makes $20m/movie they are worth that--the market pays that. Movie star salaries will come down around the time CEO salaries come down... which is to say, never (or until capitalism collapses).
No, I am not cruel. I have a sense of justice. Hollywood has been a meddelsome, condescending, elistist, racist, and obnoxious sore on this country for decades. They walk about moaning about how important the industry is, and how everyone must bend all of the laws to fit their silly needs. Well, frankly, it's time they realized they aren't a significantly large industry (small than all heavy industry, computers, software, video games, and lots of other stuff) to demand as much law making as they ask for. And best yet, they can go to pot for all I care. You abuse customers long enough, hard enough, and given the opportunity they will fuck you back when they can
I find it ironic that you talk about movies on your homepage yet say you could care less if they dissapear. You also claim that customers are being abused. Again, the market determines that under capitalism. No one is forcing people to watch movies. No one is taking money away from them. If someone pays for films, that's their problem. In any case, you clearly fit into the example that I cited: right-wing groups unhappy with liberal movies and hence want to see the destruction of Hollywood. Blaming Hollywood for being "meddelsome, condescending, elistist, racist, and obnoxious" is kind of lame, given that every other industry is like that. In fact, there are other industries that are far worse.
IBM spending on R&D? lol Who cares? What difference does that make? Are they trying to improve the world? Nope! They are just doing it for profits. Walmart building stores? So that they can pay close to minimum wage to peddle their wares?
My analogy doesn't suck... your stance sucks. You cannot just criticize one company because they make a lot of profit! You either pick all of them or you don't pick any! You either support capitalism or you don't! Right now, you are simply being hypocritical. Do you support Hollywood studios that barely break even (say some independent studio making indie films)?
Television is paid for by advertisers. If there were no ads, it wouldn't even be free. And no, $20 isn't going to cut it. If you actually paid the costs (without ads), you would probably need to pay $20/channel!
I'm not saying everyone should be brainwashed by propaganda from large corporations (that's what ads are). All I'm saying is that the whole model will come crashing down.
In fact, if advertising didn't influence people, the whole model will fail too.
I guess, while rubbish can teach you that there are other people and cultures in the world, it is far better to wait and meet an actual , real person and to formulate views on the outside world based on them rather than the mass-produced garbage their culture may spew out.
This is not going to happen to the vast majority of the population so tv IS better. This is kind of like saying "watching a nature documentary about lions is recommended because most humans will come nowehre near a lion (unless they have a zoo nearby)."
That's such an elitist view. It doesn't surprise me given that it is coming from an anti-socialist. I know you love your elitist systems and love the way the world is ruled by elites, but it isn't happening. People like you are the losers. Empowerment for the people!
BTW, the world was significantly improved when the peasents and the serfs started involving themselves in knowledge... that was pretty much the start of the end of the aristocrats...
This is all getting so theoretical. No, reading a magazine in the dentist's office is not a "rip-off." Advertising rates are set on a calculation that magazines are read by some multiple of the official circulation.
Things that are driven by advertising is different (eg. magazines, newspapers, television, etc). I actually think all of these should be free (newspapers for example should all be free IMO). In these cases, tv/radio/etc are not selling a problem to you; instead, they are selling YOU to the advertiser! Things like movies, music, and others are NOT driven by advertising. When the commercials before a movie pay for hte movie, then you have a point. People should be allowed to share.
The production assistant two buildings over, the set dresser who lives in Larchmont, the special effects director over there in Encino has much more to be worried about from the competition by Orlando, Wilmington, Toronto, and Vancouver, and New York City than the guy with a camera in his lap at the cineplex over in Stockton.
People will worry about ALL factors. What I mentioned is neither the only one nor the most important one. However, it can--and is--under certian circumstances. For example, SouthEast Asia has high piracy and hence this is a major issue. Or, if 20 million people don't pay for films, it WILL impact the industry.
Meanwhile, about this law, isn't it just a feel-good thing? Some legislator stands up and says "I did something about piracy."
I don't know about the law. In fact, I thought this was already illegal (I'm not in Cali though).
You know, I thought about that. I thought someone would say that. I was going to mention software piracy but wanted something simpler. I'll see if I an come up with a better example.
When I think much about this, I feel like we are headed straight towards a tyranny that will make Stalin's Russia look pleasant.
It wont' be as bad. Capitalism is solely an economic system so it won't be as brutal as systems where politics are part of it. So, I don't think people will be rounded up and murdered (as in USSR). But, people will simply be slaves to the system. Remember, capitalists need you. You are a worker. Whereas USSR didn't really need you.
Anyway, capitalism will collapse as soon as people realize they are nothing more than worker-consumer ants. As Marx predicted, there will be a class war.
I really don't think the Rome analogy holds with respect to the failure of hte economic system (that's what we were talking about). I like to seperate the economic problems from the political problems (although they are often intertwined). USA can fail just like Rome for other reasons other than economics (eg. imperialism). Empires cannot maintain themselves without massive armies spread out all over the world and starting wars constantly. USA, you'll note, can be described in that term (largest army in the world, troops in more than 100(!) countries, etc). Needless to say, imperialism also results it losing democratic ideals. This happened to Rome and watch it happen to USA too.
I disagree. The problem is not with the politicians. It isn't even the companies that do it.
The problem solely lies with the PEOPLE. The electorate is just a bunch of sheep brainwashed by the elites. The people have a ton of power yet they don't use it.
If we were living under a totalitarian system, then I would agree with your point. But we aren't. Stop blaming the corrupt policians and the corrupt businesses! What are the corrupt politicians doing in office in the first place? Why do people keep re-electing LIARS?
What you are describing is the modern form of capitalism (sometimes called corporatism). More than 70% of all companies are like that. If you follow a philosophy that applies to ALL such companies, I have no problem with you. But if you just pick on RIAA, or MPAA, or Microsoft, or whatever, I DO have a problem.
So... the question is: do you extend that view to other companies? Do you boycott Boeing (stop flying in their planes) because we all know how easily they have the politicians in their pocket? Do you avoid Exonn Mobil, Shell, and other oil companies because they heavily influence US politicians? Do you ignore products from IBM because it is one of the most powerful lobby group in the tech industry and influences a lot of legislation related to technology?
Do you even live in the modern world? I respect your principles. I'm an anti-capitalist who hates capitalism and its elite entities called corporations. But I am not as principled and I certainly don't hold the same attitude. So are you sticking to your principles?
As I mentioned, you are impacting ALL workers, not just the ones at the top.
Whats $13.50 CDN compared to 300 million dollars. Thats 0.000000045% Wow, do i feel bad now.
If a million like-minded individuals did that, it would turn out to be $13,500,000. That's a lot of money. The studios GROSS $300million; they make less. Costs are $100m to $150m for blockbusters.
In any case, you are just jealous. With your philosophy, you can steal literally everything! IBM makes more than $10billion so let me just use all their stuff for free. Walmart makes billions so let me just go and take everything I want. Exonn Mobil makes tens of billions so let me just use some gasoline without paying. And best of all, banks make billions every quarter so let me just take some money for free...
You have a point but I just think the disagreements weren't the cause of it. It's the American psyche or culture it seems. Like I said, Hamilton's Party was almost non-existent. The individuals, on the other hand, were influential (Hamilton, who wasn't elected president, had a massive impact on the Bill of Rights).
In any case, the point I'm getting at is that the people running the system now make it so that only they (the two parties) benefit. For instance, why is campaign financing reforms nonexistent, and whatever is passed is almost useless. You literally need to be a millionaire to run for senior government positions. Your party literally needs tens of millions to even compete in one state. What are the chances of a small party (like Liberatarian Party, or Green Party, or whatever) competing? What are the chances of YOU running successfully?
How come televisions don't really pay any attention to the smaller parties? Yes, this problem exists in other countries too but USA is far worse.
The corporate-controlled media only backs the two parties in power. It's as simple as that. If the media gave even 20% of their political time to other parties or candidates, the system will be better off.
Having said this, I agree with you that there are some major flaws. I really don't like the US system. I personally prefer the British-style system. For instance, the electoral college system isn't so good IMO (although there is a reason for that). I also prefer proportional representation (even Canada doesn't have this yet, unlike Europe). The winner-takes-all voting sucks.
I find it ironic that the US system can, in some ways, be more democratic--at least on theory. USA has 3 branches of government: president, congress, senate. All of these are independent and elected by the people so it should be FAR better than other countries. For example, the Canadian Senate is a total joke, where senators aren't elected (generally, famous or wealthy elites are appointed). Yet, USA doesn't leverage its strength of independent branches.
Clinton never drafted because he never really needed any troops. No one is going to draft just for the sake of it; they will only do it if troops are needed. Clinton's wars were either supported by foreign countries (the present 40-odd "coaltion of the willing" does not count, especially given that half of them are tiny countries only doing it for money or US political support), or the wars weren't full-scale imperial wars which required occupation. The present wars aren't like that.
It all depends on who wins the election though. My guess is that Bush will win again. If he does, he may conscript (if needed). Howard Dean won't conscript (unless he wants a major lynching), but Wesley Clark probably will. So, Bush and Clark will conscript IMO.
The probability of a draft is very low at this point in time. However, it may happen. Here are some articles speculating on conscription. The articles are a little bit old but the point stands. Also, the draft board they refer to was taken down by the military (it's not online anymore):
I only read the first article. The scanned the others and the message is similar.
The Pentagon wouldn't really want draftees coming in anyway, not after Vietnam, so no matter who's in the White House, you're not going to have conscription until we have a French carrier halfway up the Patomac or something.
French Carrier up the Pontamac? Nah... all you need is a non-existent Iraqi carrier armed with non-existent WMD posing a non-existent threat... I don't whether to cry or laugh at this comment:|
Liar. Liar. Liar. I am going to make this real clear. I *never* buy certian magazines or music products. However, if I read an article in a magazine at my friends house the publisher is not being ripped off. Likewise for music, or a DVD.
In those cases I got the benefit but paid nothing. Zero. Zilch.
You ARE ripping off the company. If you really weren't going to buy it or weren't interested, you wouldn't even use it/hear it/listen to it. The way you are using your argument (claiming that you never buy stuff) is nothing more than an excuse. If anything, you are simply behaving the way you do because the technologies that permit you to share/enjoy exist. For instance, if you couldn't copy/download a movie, or song, or whatever, you wouldn't even be using it.
Consider the following example. I'll never buy a Ferrari. But let me just take it out for a spin. I'll return it in the same condition.
Or how about software? Do you extend that view to software too? Should anyone be paying for ANY software?
The fact is that a download does not constitute a lost sale. It *may*, but it does'nt necessarily mean a sale was lost.
Yes, some sales WILL be lost; some won't. Yes, the record companies exaggerate their figures. But it doesn't change the point.
One last point: the main effect of pirating movies and lost revenues that may occur from it will be a reduction of top-tier movie stars. Regardless of what these bozo's in the ad campaigns tell you, there jobs are not really at risk. You need light guys, you need sound guys, you need reel guys, stunt guys, etc. You *have* to have them. You do not need to pay an actor $25-million instead of $22.5 million, or $20 million, or $10 million.
That is NOT true under capitalism. Everyone will be impacted. Remember, any wage is permitted under capitalism (although government intervention and worker movements impact this somewhat via minimum wage laws, etc). If a company loses money, they won't just cut the high salary personnel! They generally do across the board cuts. Layoff people, make them work harder, lower their wages, etc. Have you looked at other industries? Who loses when a company struggles? Do CEOs lose their jobs, or get their wages cut?
In fact, if I knew that my pirating would induce a Tom Cruise or Bruce Willis or Susan Sarandon to lose a few million bucks over a course career, I'd be doing it for sport.
Apart from the fact that you are either cruel or jealous (like the latter), you can already do that. If you pirate movies, you WILL impact these actors (along with countless other workers). Of course, you need to get a movement going but it is quite within the power. There are already many right-wing anti-Hollywood movements that boycott.
hmm...I thought it was already like that. Does this mean you can go and record stuff in the theater right now? I thought you couldn't... (I"m not in Cali... the rules are similar everywhere I'm guessing)...
I think you are not talking about 'act' but 'force'. The UN does not--and never should--use force. If it does, it will turn into a totalitarian body worse than USSR. It's too bad most people don't realize this. That's why the UN is the way it is. Why do you think USA is hated by more people than anyone else in over 200 years. Even the British (who were colonialists) weren't hated as much. It is precisely because USA 'acts' too much instead of just taking care of itself.
In any case, most 'acts' result in violence. The UN is anti-war and peace oriented. So it should not go around starting wars because they violate its treaties. Should the UN (say it had a military wing) invade 80% of the countries on earth because women are abused and treated as inferiors. The UN stance is NO; yours is YES. Instead, it seeks to acheive peace. Without the UN, there would be far less peace in the world. For example, the UN pretty much eliminated territorial wars.
Actually governments DO consult people in the technology field. Otherwise, how do you think they came up with all these things? They don't know anything about technology so it's hard to make laws about it...
The thing is... the people in power (the elites, the capitalists, the wealthy, the corporations, etc) are the ones who influence everything. You'll find that a lot of legilation related to technology is driven by these technology interests. Politicians don't usually dream up these things all by themselves--they can't (they don't even know what an operating system is). DMCA didn't just pop out of nowehre. There is a huge industry (I would argue a majority of the tech industry) supporting it. Same thing with everything else.
Slashdot Mirror
Libraries are socialist institutions that are generally subsidized. In addition, libraries artificially impose scarcity by ensuring that only one person can sign out a book. When it comes to electronic content that can be easily copied, they usually license/purchase it for a ton of money. This is why most people cannot afford to purchase an analyst report on the future market potential of Linux (costs at least $1000) yet you can go to a university library or maybe a very large library system and find it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Magazines are paid for by advertisers. A book is a better example. Even with a book, the doctor's office (or whoever) pays for the book. I don't have a problem with that. But if they downloaded an electronic book and started passing it off, I would have a problem.
The music industry has lost the curve forever-they are in the past tense. Sony et all will build the price of CD sales they think they lost into the hardware they sell.
My problem is not the studios. I don't care about them. My problem are the artists. Most people who pirate simply don't pay anything for the artists. Yes, some do--but most don't. Why do you think the most downloaded songs/movies/etc are precisely the most popular ones (eg. Britney Spears, Justin Timerlake, P.Diddy, Nelly, etc)?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You are totally missing the parent's point. If I would have otherwise bought the software, yes. For example, if I didn't use gimp, I would probably buy photoshop. But if I use photoshop for a little while anyway, I don't think it is that big of a deal. Pay for what you would have otherwise bought.
The problem with this is that capitalism encourages and rewards greed (yes, I realize capitalists are in total denial over this). So, most people will claim that they really wouldn't have purchased something. I could literally claim that I should pirate every single software because, well, I wasn't going to buy it anyway. I mean, why should I be buying this game for $50 when I'm only playing it for 20 hours? You see this all over the place, including businesses. Many small businesses pirate a lot of software. You can even find the owners justifying it with your reason: "oh, I wasn't using it much and wouldn't have bought it anyway".
If people were honest (or we were practicing another econopolitical system), I would support your position. It is very hard for me to support your position under capitalism.
While it's true that businesses cut corners everywhere they can, I can assure you that some of the first to get the axe will be the higher-ups. If your business starts going down, they don't blame the gaffer. They blame the execs. And anyway, most of the lower-level workers have set wages by guilds/unions, so in the most literal sense, it does not directly cut their wages.
I exaggerated my point a bit and you are doing the same. The executives are generally the ones that are LEAST impacted by this. There are MANY companies that struggle and yet the executives don't feel any pain. Even when they are terminated, they get perks and other compensation that is nowhere near what a lower class worker would get. It is not uncommon for executives to receive hundreads of thousands of dollars for "a job well done" even though they are being terminated. How many lower class workers get any sort of "bonus" for being terminated (other than the usual stuff)? And let's not even get into golden parachutes. Yes, executives get paid MORE for being terminated.
As far as wages being set by unions, well, first of all, this depends what country/region/etc you are in. In the vast majority of the earth's workers have no unions (most workers are in poor countries). In countries like USA, unions aren't that common either. Europe and Canada have quite a lot of unions. In any case, I agree that wages don't go down (economists refer to downward rigidity of wages). However, workers are adversely impacted (relative to executives). Many workers are laid off. Often, those that remain have to do the jobs of 1.5 people (or twice as much in some cases). This rarely ever happens in the senior levels. When was the last time a Controller was eliminated and a Chief Financial Officer ends up doing their work? Not that often. The further up you go, the less you are impacted.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yes the car example was horrible.. have to come up with something better (thinking of books as an example but will see if there is something better)...
:( ) or someone who really isn't into the book, would do it. You can't deny the negative impact of electronic book piracy on the market (but it's just that it is irrelevant right now cuz it isn't there yet. Even the "best" pirated books suck).
sure, if it is of value to you, and the price doesn't exceed the value. True capitalism.
Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying pirating software (say spreading beta copies or something) is perfectly ok with you? Just like movies?
Since the point is, not all downloads cost the industry money, I'd say it IS the point.
My point takes precedence over your point since it is more relevant. That is, there is a significant chunk of the population who download movies (I had some friends who did that when I was in school). This is more important than your point that other downloads don't cost any money.
In any case, if downloading movies is ok, is downloading software ok with you too?
there is a minimum amount of people they will need to make a movie. Unless Tom Cruise is going to start moving set pieces(haha).
This depends on whether you support capitalism or not. If you don't support capitalism (like me), you can legitimately say that some jobs/people/etc are overpaid. My problem is that most people who make that serious charge are in fact capitalists or quasi-capitalists. There is no basis for them claiming that someone is overpaid. You can't say Bruch Willis is overpaid, just like how you can't say Sam Palmisano (CEO of IBM) is overpaid. Pick one: do you support the notion that some people are overpaid (which is an attack on markets and the heart of capitalism)? Or do you not?
Fact is, if filming movies in a theater would destroy the industries, it would have already been destroyed. unauthorized people making mass productions and then reselling them is where the loss comes in, not from some smoe filmimg in a theater.
A lot of unauthorized productions come from filming in theaters. I already thought it was illegal film and that's why I was surprised that someone was introducing a bill for it (does that mean it is legal right now). A lot of the pirated films are from in-theater filming. It depends on the cases but in many cases people don't have access to the film (the actual film roll) or have to wait for films to get to Asia (which lags since premieres are in North America).
Could you image seeing one of those records and going "Well I was going to buy this movie, but gosh darn, this horrible copy, with the sound of someone eating popcorn, is much better."?
A true movie fan like me wouldn't go near it at all. But casual fans and others trying to save money will. It's like books. How many people pirate electronic books or something? Someone who is really into books wouldn't download a copy. But someone who can't afford it (say like me who is unemployed
Sivaram Velauthapillai
When I do use it/listen to it, it's incidental. I couldn't care less. Literally, it's one way or another and I don't care.
:) ... So, are you saying that you don't support EULAs on DVDs/CDs/books/etc or you wouldn't have a problem if they put an EULA on them? If DVDs/etc started placing additional restrictions, would you be satisfied?
If you don't care, why are you even using it? Claiming you don't care while using it is hypocritical. I actually dont pirate, cause like I said, I don't care. I dont enjoy the media, it's mostly crap. And seperating crap from not is hard.
I think a lot of people who support your view have this notion that some product is either worthy or not. I'm not even a capitalist yet even I can say that there is no such thing as "bad" products. You don't like something? Your product failed? It's a risk you take. You can't buy a house and then return it since it is "crap". Under capitalism, EVERYTHING is worth what the MARKET determines. I could sell sand from Iraq for $100 and if people buy it, it is WORTH it--it certainly isn't "crap".
I am all for enforcing personally made contracts. Most software you pay for you agree to a contract with additional limitations on top of copyright - an EULA. I agree to no such limitations with DVDs, Magazines, or CDs.
hmm... you are not like the rest of the Slashdot crowd, who is generally anti-EULA
The fact is that there is not much fat that doesn't relate to top stars in a movie. There just isn't. If you want a movie, you need a certain number of people. In a lot of movies that number is as low or damn near as low as possible already. They've been squeezing them for *decades* in case you haven't been paying attention. The only place that hasn't felt the pinch of more movies and less audience is the top tier actors. They will be the first to feel a real pinch.
Again, I'm not going to go into something that simply ignores the tenets of capitalism. You are speculating on the "fat" in the movie industry. I'm anti-capitalist and could care less about capitalism (in fact I think it's going to collapse as Marx predicted), but I have no idea how you can say that some industry does or does not have "fat". Or the popular notion how people are overpaid. There is no such thing as being overpaid under capitalism. If a movie star makes $20m/movie they are worth that--the market pays that. Movie star salaries will come down around the time CEO salaries come down... which is to say, never (or until capitalism collapses).
No, I am not cruel. I have a sense of justice. Hollywood has been a meddelsome, condescending, elistist, racist, and obnoxious sore on this country for decades. They walk about moaning about how important the industry is, and how everyone must bend all of the laws to fit their silly needs. Well, frankly, it's time they realized they aren't a significantly large industry (small than all heavy industry, computers, software, video games, and lots of other stuff) to demand as much law making as they ask for. And best yet, they can go to pot for all I care. You abuse customers long enough, hard enough, and given the opportunity they will fuck you back when they can
I find it ironic that you talk about movies on your homepage yet say you could care less if they dissapear. You also claim that customers are being abused. Again, the market determines that under capitalism. No one is forcing people to watch movies. No one is taking money away from them. If someone pays for films, that's their problem. In any case, you clearly fit into the example that I cited: right-wing groups unhappy with liberal movies and hence want to see the destruction of Hollywood. Blaming Hollywood for being "meddelsome, condescending, elistist, racist, and obnoxious" is kind of lame, given that every other industry is like that. In fact, there are other industries that are far worse.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
IBM spending on R&D? lol Who cares? What difference does that make? Are they trying to improve the world? Nope! They are just doing it for profits. Walmart building stores? So that they can pay close to minimum wage to peddle their wares?
My analogy doesn't suck... your stance sucks. You cannot just criticize one company because they make a lot of profit! You either pick all of them or you don't pick any! You either support capitalism or you don't! Right now, you are simply being hypocritical. Do you support Hollywood studios that barely break even (say some independent studio making indie films)?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How can you count The Onion as information pollution? That's entertainment. Unless, of course, you count all entertainment as pollution.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What does egalitarianism have to do with any of this? I haven't seen Metropolis but mabye egalitarianism was part of it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What exactly is the argument that fewer genocides will happen if speech were free? Also, how was speech not free in Rwanda and Germany?
I support FULL freedom of speech... but I realize that it WILL result in atrocities.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Television is paid for by advertisers. If there were no ads, it wouldn't even be free. And no, $20 isn't going to cut it. If you actually paid the costs (without ads), you would probably need to pay $20/channel!
I'm not saying everyone should be brainwashed by propaganda from large corporations (that's what ads are). All I'm saying is that the whole model will come crashing down.
In fact, if advertising didn't influence people, the whole model will fail too.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I guess, while rubbish can teach you that there are other people and cultures in the world, it is far better to wait and meet an actual , real person and to formulate views on the outside world based on them rather than the mass-produced garbage their culture may spew out.
This is not going to happen to the vast majority of the population so tv IS better. This is kind of like saying "watching a nature documentary about lions is recommended because most humans will come nowehre near a lion (unless they have a zoo nearby)."
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's such an elitist view. It doesn't surprise me given that it is coming from an anti-socialist. I know you love your elitist systems and love the way the world is ruled by elites, but it isn't happening. People like you are the losers. Empowerment for the people!
BTW, the world was significantly improved when the peasents and the serfs started involving themselves in knowledge... that was pretty much the start of the end of the aristocrats...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think if you are just doing it for yourself, it's ok in my eyes. I only see a problem when people start doing it on a mass scale.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This is all getting so theoretical. No, reading a magazine in the dentist's office is not a "rip-off." Advertising rates are set on a calculation that magazines are read by some multiple of the official circulation.
Things that are driven by advertising is different (eg. magazines, newspapers, television, etc). I actually think all of these should be free (newspapers for example should all be free IMO). In these cases, tv/radio/etc are not selling a problem to you; instead, they are selling YOU to the advertiser! Things like movies, music, and others are NOT driven by advertising. When the commercials before a movie pay for hte movie, then you have a point. People should be allowed to share.
The production assistant two buildings over, the set dresser who lives in Larchmont, the special effects director over there in Encino has much more to be worried about from the competition by Orlando, Wilmington, Toronto, and Vancouver, and New York City than the guy with a camera in his lap at the cineplex over in Stockton.
People will worry about ALL factors. What I mentioned is neither the only one nor the most important one. However, it can--and is--under certian circumstances. For example, SouthEast Asia has high piracy and hence this is a major issue. Or, if 20 million people don't pay for films, it WILL impact the industry.
Meanwhile, about this law, isn't it just a feel-good thing? Some legislator stands up and says "I did something about piracy."
I don't know about the law. In fact, I thought this was already illegal (I'm not in Cali though).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You know, I thought about that. I thought someone would say that. I was going to mention software piracy but wanted something simpler. I'll see if I an come up with a better example.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
When I think much about this, I feel like we are headed straight towards a tyranny that will make Stalin's Russia look pleasant.
It wont' be as bad. Capitalism is solely an economic system so it won't be as brutal as systems where politics are part of it. So, I don't think people will be rounded up and murdered (as in USSR). But, people will simply be slaves to the system. Remember, capitalists need you. You are a worker. Whereas USSR didn't really need you.
Anyway, capitalism will collapse as soon as people realize they are nothing more than worker-consumer ants. As Marx predicted, there will be a class war.
I really don't think the Rome analogy holds with respect to the failure of hte economic system (that's what we were talking about). I like to seperate the economic problems from the political problems (although they are often intertwined). USA can fail just like Rome for other reasons other than economics (eg. imperialism). Empires cannot maintain themselves without massive armies spread out all over the world and starting wars constantly. USA, you'll note, can be described in that term (largest army in the world, troops in more than 100(!) countries, etc). Needless to say, imperialism also results it losing democratic ideals. This happened to Rome and watch it happen to USA too.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I disagree. The problem is not with the politicians. It isn't even the companies that do it.
The problem solely lies with the PEOPLE. The electorate is just a bunch of sheep brainwashed by the elites. The people have a ton of power yet they don't use it.
If we were living under a totalitarian system, then I would agree with your point. But we aren't. Stop blaming the corrupt policians and the corrupt businesses! What are the corrupt politicians doing in office in the first place? Why do people keep re-electing LIARS?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What you are describing is the modern form of capitalism (sometimes called corporatism). More than 70% of all companies are like that. If you follow a philosophy that applies to ALL such companies, I have no problem with you. But if you just pick on RIAA, or MPAA, or Microsoft, or whatever, I DO have a problem.
So... the question is: do you extend that view to other companies? Do you boycott Boeing (stop flying in their planes) because we all know how easily they have the politicians in their pocket? Do you avoid Exonn Mobil, Shell, and other oil companies because they heavily influence US politicians? Do you ignore products from IBM because it is one of the most powerful lobby group in the tech industry and influences a lot of legislation related to technology?
Do you even live in the modern world? I respect your principles. I'm an anti-capitalist who hates capitalism and its elite entities called corporations. But I am not as principled and I certainly don't hold the same attitude. So are you sticking to your principles?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
As I mentioned, you are impacting ALL workers, not just the ones at the top.
Whats $13.50 CDN compared to 300 million dollars. Thats 0.000000045% Wow, do i feel bad now.
If a million like-minded individuals did that, it would turn out to be $13,500,000. That's a lot of money. The studios GROSS $300million; they make less. Costs are $100m to $150m for blockbusters.
In any case, you are just jealous. With your philosophy, you can steal literally everything! IBM makes more than $10billion so let me just use all their stuff for free. Walmart makes billions so let me just go and take everything I want. Exonn Mobil makes tens of billions so let me just use some gasoline without paying. And best of all, banks make billions every quarter so let me just take some money for free...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You have a point but I just think the disagreements weren't the cause of it. It's the American psyche or culture it seems. Like I said, Hamilton's Party was almost non-existent. The individuals, on the other hand, were influential (Hamilton, who wasn't elected president, had a massive impact on the Bill of Rights).
In any case, the point I'm getting at is that the people running the system now make it so that only they (the two parties) benefit. For instance, why is campaign financing reforms nonexistent, and whatever is passed is almost useless. You literally need to be a millionaire to run for senior government positions. Your party literally needs tens of millions to even compete in one state. What are the chances of a small party (like Liberatarian Party, or Green Party, or whatever) competing? What are the chances of YOU running successfully?
How come televisions don't really pay any attention to the smaller parties? Yes, this problem exists in other countries too but USA is far worse.
The corporate-controlled media only backs the two parties in power. It's as simple as that. If the media gave even 20% of their political time to other parties or candidates, the system will be better off.
Having said this, I agree with you that there are some major flaws. I really don't like the US system. I personally prefer the British-style system. For instance, the electoral college system isn't so good IMO (although there is a reason for that). I also prefer proportional representation (even Canada doesn't have this yet, unlike Europe). The winner-takes-all voting sucks.
I find it ironic that the US system can, in some ways, be more democratic--at least on theory. USA has 3 branches of government: president, congress, senate. All of these are independent and elected by the people so it should be FAR better than other countries. For example, the Canadian Senate is a total joke, where senators aren't elected (generally, famous or wealthy elites are appointed). Yet, USA doesn't leverage its strength of independent branches.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Clinton never drafted because he never really needed any troops. No one is going to draft just for the sake of it; they will only do it if troops are needed. Clinton's wars were either supported by foreign countries (the present 40-odd "coaltion of the willing" does not count, especially given that half of them are tiny countries only doing it for money or US political support), or the wars weren't full-scale imperial wars which required occupation. The present wars aren't like that.
:|
It all depends on who wins the election though. My guess is that Bush will win again. If he does, he may conscript (if needed). Howard Dean won't conscript (unless he wants a major lynching), but Wesley Clark probably will. So, Bush and Clark will conscript IMO.
The probability of a draft is very low at this point in time. However, it may happen. Here are some articles speculating on conscription. The articles are a little bit old but the point stands. Also, the draft board they refer to was taken down by the military (it's not online anymore):
Will U.S. bring back the draft?
Talk of a draft grows despite denials by White House
Draft boards fuel rumors
I only read the first article. The scanned the others and the message is similar.
The Pentagon wouldn't really want draftees coming in anyway, not after Vietnam, so no matter who's in the White House, you're not going to have conscription until we have a French carrier halfway up the Patomac or something.
French Carrier up the Pontamac? Nah... all you need is a non-existent Iraqi carrier armed with non-existent WMD posing a non-existent threat... I don't whether to cry or laugh at this comment
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Liar. Liar. Liar. I am going to make this real clear. I *never* buy certian magazines or music products. However, if I read an article in a magazine at my friends house the publisher is not being ripped off. Likewise for music, or a DVD. In those cases I got the benefit but paid nothing. Zero. Zilch.
You ARE ripping off the company. If you really weren't going to buy it or weren't interested, you wouldn't even use it/hear it/listen to it. The way you are using your argument (claiming that you never buy stuff) is nothing more than an excuse. If anything, you are simply behaving the way you do because the technologies that permit you to share/enjoy exist. For instance, if you couldn't copy/download a movie, or song, or whatever, you wouldn't even be using it.
Consider the following example. I'll never buy a Ferrari. But let me just take it out for a spin. I'll return it in the same condition.
Or how about software? Do you extend that view to software too? Should anyone be paying for ANY software?
The fact is that a download does not constitute a lost sale. It *may*, but it does'nt necessarily mean a sale was lost.
Yes, some sales WILL be lost; some won't. Yes, the record companies exaggerate their figures. But it doesn't change the point.
One last point: the main effect of pirating movies and lost revenues that may occur from it will be a reduction of top-tier movie stars. Regardless of what these bozo's in the ad campaigns tell you, there jobs are not really at risk. You need light guys, you need sound guys, you need reel guys, stunt guys, etc. You *have* to have them. You do not need to pay an actor $25-million instead of $22.5 million, or $20 million, or $10 million.
That is NOT true under capitalism. Everyone will be impacted. Remember, any wage is permitted under capitalism (although government intervention and worker movements impact this somewhat via minimum wage laws, etc). If a company loses money, they won't just cut the high salary personnel! They generally do across the board cuts. Layoff people, make them work harder, lower their wages, etc. Have you looked at other industries? Who loses when a company struggles? Do CEOs lose their jobs, or get their wages cut?
In fact, if I knew that my pirating would induce a Tom Cruise or Bruce Willis or Susan Sarandon to lose a few million bucks over a course career, I'd be doing it for sport.
Apart from the fact that you are either cruel or jealous (like the latter), you can already do that. If you pirate movies, you WILL impact these actors (along with countless other workers). Of course, you need to get a movement going but it is quite within the power. There are already many right-wing anti-Hollywood movements that boycott.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
hmm...I thought it was already like that. Does this mean you can go and record stuff in the theater right now? I thought you couldn't... (I"m not in Cali... the rules are similar everywhere I'm guessing)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think you are not talking about 'act' but 'force'. The UN does not--and never should--use force. If it does, it will turn into a totalitarian body worse than USSR. It's too bad most people don't realize this. That's why the UN is the way it is. Why do you think USA is hated by more people than anyone else in over 200 years. Even the British (who were colonialists) weren't hated as much. It is precisely because USA 'acts' too much instead of just taking care of itself.
In any case, most 'acts' result in violence. The UN is anti-war and peace oriented. So it should not go around starting wars because they violate its treaties. Should the UN (say it had a military wing) invade 80% of the countries on earth because women are abused and treated as inferiors. The UN stance is NO; yours is YES. Instead, it seeks to acheive peace. Without the UN, there would be far less peace in the world. For example, the UN pretty much eliminated territorial wars.
I would rather have no UN than one that 'acts'.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Actually governments DO consult people in the technology field. Otherwise, how do you think they came up with all these things? They don't know anything about technology so it's hard to make laws about it...
The thing is... the people in power (the elites, the capitalists, the wealthy, the corporations, etc) are the ones who influence everything. You'll find that a lot of legilation related to technology is driven by these technology interests. Politicians don't usually dream up these things all by themselves--they can't (they don't even know what an operating system is). DMCA didn't just pop out of nowehre. There is a huge industry (I would argue a majority of the tech industry) supporting it. Same thing with everything else.
Sivaram Velauthapillai