Maybe they should find somewhere else to sell to and do business with so, and China can take its 7% of US national debt and do what it likes with it. This kind of saying one thing out of one corner of your mouth and something else out of the other always comes back to bite one in the ass, once enough of your population take it seriously. I have to admit I'm a bit surprised that this level of cold war rhetoric is still rasping from the klaxons.
So tell me, having "shared" the work and found the ones they like, how many would then be motivated to go out and buy the CD from a shop, or the music from itunes? Why would they bother when most or all could hardly tell any difference in sound quality? Spare me the free marketing excuse, its more sophistry to justify getting something for nothing. If the artist wants to release free samples so people can judge for themselves, thats the artist's lookout.
But sharing involves no financial gain for anyone and therefore the author doesn't actually lose anything -- in fact you get free publicity and expose which will more than cover any theoretical loss you might have suffered from sharing.
Sharing books are different to sharing a lot of other entertainment though, and there is a real difference between your buddy borrowing it and sharing it with a half million people. Some of them certainly would have purchased, even one percent would be quite significant financially.
But you do not see that software designers or engineers sponsoring lobbies to screw the law, screw everybody else for our own profit.
*cough*software patents, BSA*cough*. The fact is copyright is there for a good reason, although the length of copyrights and the *AA tactics are both deplorable.
Books are a bit of a funky example though, many people still prefer to have the paper in their hand and on their shelf. What you don't see, and why I think copyright laws were first enacted, is the mass reproduction of paper books. I'm not going to argue sales figures over and back, and I don't support the *AAs, but its worth thinking about that music or a movie are almost as good over bitorrent as from a shop, certainly good enough for most people. Once e-ink readers fully mature, we may see the same for books.
Sure, tell you what so, go ahead and learn to play an instrument or wield a paintbrush or create art well enough to be considered good, then work at it a bit longer until you have something reasonably original and interesting, then roll it out and tell me that was only a couple of days work.
I have no difficulty with cutting copyrights down to maybe twelve or fourteen years, but up to that time no amount of bullshit rationalisations are going to excuse the unauthorised use of creative output. After that I couldn't care less, create more to earn more. This is something that enriches society in two ways - early endings to copyrights allows other artists to take what was created and build on it, and it encourages artists themselves to create new and original works.
Your matrix must be different from mine so. Among the flapping holes in his argument, a) some censorship is probably acceptable when the communication itself becomes an act of violence (cf child pornography, snuff movies), b) inability to understand that "orderly systematic process" and violence are the same thing in places like China, and there is a substantial difference between that and law and order, and c) tha gaping self contradictions in the post, for example, "That's right--you can't challenge censorship in the US" versus "Witness the cases being thrown out left and right."; if you can't challenge it how are cases even reaching the courts?
It does hit the right buzzwords to give one a vague feeling of self righteous indignation and victimisation while making almost zero sense though, I will give it that.
Oh please. Your implication is surely that there is some country such as, I don't know, the USA that is just as China bad but hides it, somehow making China more admirable.
Indeed, the fact that what censorship there is in the US might be disguised or hidden is itself a sign of freedom. Otherwise the boot would come down just as it does in China. "At least they are honest about it" only means that they are more willing to use force to suppress dissent, and don't fear dissent since they can imprison or kill dissenters. Don't like it? They'll imprison or kill you too.
I'm sure what you meant to say was "to hell with any country that is open about censorship, and doesn't hide behind the media and state secrets".
The degree of open censorship within a country is proportional to the number of bullets that country is willing to use to enforce its censorship. So its not really a positive that they don't bother to hide it.
It's cheap because not many people are charging their electric cars at night. That will change real fast, and the same grid that can't handle everyone running their air conditioner will collapse under the load.
Yeah, we put a levy on plastic bags in shops here in Ireland a few years back, 20c or so, a few years later, no plastic bags and no problems. People just bring along cloth bags when they go shopping.
Once people figure out they can vote more money for themselves, they do, see California for reference. If you want to ban corporate donations, ban corporate donations.
Majority wins and not just the vocal (or rich) minority.
If you want to see direct democracy at work, look at California. The Swiss have something similar and some of their Cantons only gave women the vote in the 90s. Thats the 1990s. And they had to be forced to do it. If you want to deal with corruption outlaw corporate donations to political parties, thats all.
Besides, admit it, most people who are over 40 take a little longer to adapt to using computers or to figure out some new-fangled program, video game, or cell phone
Hate to break it to you, but the reality is that most people over 40 just don't have the patience for useless bullshit that a younger person might have, due mostly to decades of useless bullshit that gets obsoleted within three years anyway. If something needs to get done though, done it gets.
which alone sell more then android and iphone combined.
Yup, for all the apple and linux flamewars ticking over and back on slashdot, its a bit of a surprise that most members missed the leviathan slowly cruising under their noses.
That was back in the 50s and 60s though, a great time in some ways, if only for the freewheeling attitude to science. The dangers of nuclear weapons weren't really understood that well, they had plans for nuclear cars, nuclear planes, nuclear every damn thing, you could buy a chemistry set without being flagged as a terrorist, dinners in a pill and jetpacks were just around the corner. It was slicked back hair and giant cars, the time of Fats Domino, Elvis, and Buddy Holly.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they should find somewhere else to sell to and do business with so, and China can take its 7% of US national debt and do what it likes with it. This kind of saying one thing out of one corner of your mouth and something else out of the other always comes back to bite one in the ass, once enough of your population take it seriously. I have to admit I'm a bit surprised that this level of cold war rhetoric is still rasping from the klaxons.
See the reply to the other poster.
So tell me, having "shared" the work and found the ones they like, how many would then be motivated to go out and buy the CD from a shop, or the music from itunes? Why would they bother when most or all could hardly tell any difference in sound quality? Spare me the free marketing excuse, its more sophistry to justify getting something for nothing. If the artist wants to release free samples so people can judge for themselves, thats the artist's lookout.
But sharing involves no financial gain for anyone and therefore the author doesn't actually lose anything -- in fact you get free publicity and expose which will more than cover any theoretical loss you might have suffered from sharing.
Sharing books are different to sharing a lot of other entertainment though, and there is a real difference between your buddy borrowing it and sharing it with a half million people. Some of them certainly would have purchased, even one percent would be quite significant financially.
But you do not see that software designers or engineers sponsoring lobbies to screw the law, screw everybody else for our own profit.
*cough*software patents, BSA*cough*. The fact is copyright is there for a good reason, although the length of copyrights and the *AA tactics are both deplorable.
The reason being that the moment they let anyone hear it or download it, the seven year clock would start ticking.
This is nonsense, copyrights were originally 14 years and you didn't see anyone "hoarding" their creativity.
Books are a bit of a funky example though, many people still prefer to have the paper in their hand and on their shelf. What you don't see, and why I think copyright laws were first enacted, is the mass reproduction of paper books. I'm not going to argue sales figures over and back, and I don't support the *AAs, but its worth thinking about that music or a movie are almost as good over bitorrent as from a shop, certainly good enough for most people. Once e-ink readers fully mature, we may see the same for books.
Sure, tell you what so, go ahead and learn to play an instrument or wield a paintbrush or create art well enough to be considered good, then work at it a bit longer until you have something reasonably original and interesting, then roll it out and tell me that was only a couple of days work.
I have no difficulty with cutting copyrights down to maybe twelve or fourteen years, but up to that time no amount of bullshit rationalisations are going to excuse the unauthorised use of creative output. After that I couldn't care less, create more to earn more. This is something that enriches society in two ways - early endings to copyrights allows other artists to take what was created and build on it, and it encourages artists themselves to create new and original works.
Your matrix must be different from mine so. Among the flapping holes in his argument, a) some censorship is probably acceptable when the communication itself becomes an act of violence (cf child pornography, snuff movies), b) inability to understand that "orderly systematic process" and violence are the same thing in places like China, and there is a substantial difference between that and law and order, and c) tha gaping self contradictions in the post, for example, "That's right--you can't challenge censorship in the US" versus "Witness the cases being thrown out left and right."; if you can't challenge it how are cases even reaching the courts?
It does hit the right buzzwords to give one a vague feeling of self righteous indignation and victimisation while making almost zero sense though, I will give it that.
Oh please. Your implication is surely that there is some country such as, I don't know, the USA that is just as China bad but hides it, somehow making China more admirable.
Indeed, the fact that what censorship there is in the US might be disguised or hidden is itself a sign of freedom. Otherwise the boot would come down just as it does in China. "At least they are honest about it" only means that they are more willing to use force to suppress dissent, and don't fear dissent since they can imprison or kill dissenters. Don't like it? They'll imprison or kill you too.
I'm sure what you meant to say was "to hell with any country that is open about censorship, and doesn't hide behind the media and state secrets".
The degree of open censorship within a country is proportional to the number of bullets that country is willing to use to enforce its censorship. So its not really a positive that they don't bother to hide it.
Never fear, the internet bullshit generator is here!
It's cheap because not many people are charging their electric cars at night. That will change real fast, and the same grid that can't handle everyone running their air conditioner will collapse under the load.
Haha, bet you feel like a prick now.
Yeah, we put a levy on plastic bags in shops here in Ireland a few years back, 20c or so, a few years later, no plastic bags and no problems. People just bring along cloth bags when they go shopping.
Which morons, and can you clarify the process of induction recycling, I can't find much on google.
If there is sensitive military information on twitter, facebook, or linkedin, its already compromised, and badly. I mean come on, this is a non story.
Once people figure out they can vote more money for themselves, they do, see California for reference. If you want to ban corporate donations, ban corporate donations.
Sure, whats the scientific stance on gay marraige or abortion?
Majority wins and not just the vocal (or rich) minority.
If you want to see direct democracy at work, look at California. The Swiss have something similar and some of their Cantons only gave women the vote in the 90s. Thats the 1990s. And they had to be forced to do it. If you want to deal with corruption outlaw corporate donations to political parties, thats all.
Is the story factually incorrect in any way, or otherwise misleading? No? Then stop whining about it and find a better company to support.
Besides, admit it, most people who are over 40 take a little longer to adapt to using computers or to figure out some new-fangled program, video game, or cell phone
Hate to break it to you, but the reality is that most people over 40 just don't have the patience for useless bullshit that a younger person might have, due mostly to decades of useless bullshit that gets obsoleted within three years anyway. If something needs to get done though, done it gets.
which alone sell more then android and iphone combined.
Yup, for all the apple and linux flamewars ticking over and back on slashdot, its a bit of a surprise that most members missed the leviathan slowly cruising under their noses.
That was back in the 50s and 60s though, a great time in some ways, if only for the freewheeling attitude to science. The dangers of nuclear weapons weren't really understood that well, they had plans for nuclear cars, nuclear planes, nuclear every damn thing, you could buy a chemistry set without being flagged as a terrorist, dinners in a pill and jetpacks were just around the corner. It was slicked back hair and giant cars, the time of Fats Domino, Elvis, and Buddy Holly.
Mod parent up, correct.
Kind of a prick, incha.