"There is no such thing as IP. One cannot own ideas."
Well, why is plagiarism immoral? Everyone can agree that trying to pass off someone else's idea as your own is wrong, doesn't that imply that you have some control over how your ideas are disseminated? What is property? The ability to control the use of an object. Therefore, since plagiarism is immoral, the existence of intellectual property is implied.
"Falsely claiming authorship and nonprofit copying is the same?"
I did not make any statement regarding what intellectual property rights should be reserved. I merely said that it exists, and respecting intellectual property is important.
"I suppose next you were about to complain that they teach kids not to cheat on tests
That's called a strawman."
No it's not, it's called poking fun at the poster.
I thought the Boy Scouts were supposed to morals and leadership skills to future generations. I think respecting other peoples IP falls under the morals category. They already teach you not to plagiarize other peoples work, which is really the same thing, so I don't see why you find this so upsetting. I suppose next you were about to complain that they teach kids not to cheat on tests.
I've never gotten in an accident while speeding, but I do feel a lot better about driving now that I've grown up and slowed down. If other people honk at you, let them honk, you shouldn't break the speed limit.
I have the opposite problem. My mac is ~6 yrs old, but my monitor is brand new. I'm glad I bought a PowerMac, or I'd have been stuck with a CRT.
On the other hand, if I'd bought an iMac I'd probably have replaced it by now, and I'd have a faster computer with a better monitor, and the same overall expenditure over the last 6 years since powermacs are so expensive. So, it really does work out well to buy the iMac.
Besides, if you don't care about CPU, why not just buy the Mac Mini?
Isn't it strange that most European leaders seem to recognize that they need a less controlled economy to increase their quality of life, but seem unwilling or unable to take the steps necessary to bring that about?
Of course, the efficiency is related to the temperature of the cold reservoir being used and the temperature of the working fluid when it is heated. If you can heat it to 800K (typical for a HTGCR) )and then cool it to 3K (sometimes called the temperature of space), you'd have nearly complete efficiency (apart form the inefficiency of the turbines, that is). Obviously, on the earth there are practical reasons you cant get the temperature that low (you're pretty much stuck with 300K), but in space if you angled the radiators correctly and were relatively far form the sun, you could probably get it down to say 150 K, and have maybe 70% efficiency, rather than the 50% you'd get with a HTCGR on earth.
I'd say that just about sums up the situation around here. I can't believe how many people will openly say that the people on slascdot think what they do because they are smarter than everyone else. What a bunch of crap.
Or, maybe people like to hire people they know and trust for the more obvious reason. They know and trust them! Think about it, if you know someone who could get the job done, that you could trust, and who you know would be a good employee, why would you bother to look for other "more qualified" applicants. It would be an idiotic waste of time, and a very poor decision. That's the reason the best way to get a job is to know someone who already works there.
They don't want truckers to use state provided bandwidth to download porn. What's wrong with that? Some people might consider the use of state funds to provide pornographic content somewhat . . . wasteful.
Those ads fund the sites you visit. The sites could not exist (for "free") without the ads. Same goes for T.V.. What's worse, the more people use ad blockers, the more ads web sites need to put out there to keep the site up. These extra ads are using up bandwidth and slowing everything down.
No matter how you look at it, it's socially irresponsible to use add blocker, you're basically making someone else pay for your entertainment, and wasting everyones time and money in general.
Judging by the website design, I think this reviewer suffers from a distinct lack of taste.
It's probably safe to say that he's just unsatisfied with the screen adaptation, and that no movie shorter than six hours in length could've satisfied him.
I'll hold out on judging the movie until I've actually seen it.
Well, if the parrent was wrong, the grand parrent was really wrong.
"But a possible amendment to House Bill 789 would prohibit city-sponsored Internet service."
It sounds like this bill will only partially restrict municipal wireless, and not restrict private wireless hotspots at all. Someone should really mod the grandparrent down, he is dead wrong.
"And the government needs to asses the cost of negative externalities, and charge that cost to the appropriate party."
I have already addressed your concern. If you don't know what a negative externality is, look it up. You assume that I am a rabid no-nothing libertarian without just cause.
So you honestly believe that it would be impossible for people to live with-ought the government? You may be surprised to learn that there was a time when people did in deed live without "government-funded police, fire, roads, schools, courts, public health (meat inspection, etc.), regulation of water/power/phone companies, pollution standards, defense, etc." In fact, many of those things didn't exist in this country until a few hundred years ago (in many cases even less time).
You should ask yourself, do I really need the government to provide all these things? Would I be able to survive without the king of massive government intervention which exists today? Think about it. Could a private, for-profit company provide police enforcement and fire protection. If you think that they'd be too corrupt, you must bear in mind that a business is not immune to lawsuits the same way the government is. Could a private company provide transportation? Many people seem to think that the company that owns the roads would have a complete monopoly, but there are alternative forms of transportation (light rail, air travel, heavy rail) that could provide competition and innovation where none exists today. Perhaps regulation of businesses could be done by private companies as well. A "standards" company could draft a standard, then charge money to businesses wishing to comply to that standard, the standards company would then perform inspections to assure compliance, and assume partial or full liability when the standard is not upheld. Likewise, defense could be privately funded, assuming that each citizen was legally obligated to provide for defense (either by volunteering time or money to approved defense related activities).
Don't get me wrong, the government it very necessary when it comes to enforcing the rule of law. Without that service, it would be up to people to enforce their own contracts, and assert their own rights. And the government needs to asses the cost of negative externalities, and charge that cost to the appropriate party. But I don't see that we really NEED the government to do anything more than that.
In fact, using the government to provide basic services strikes me as particularly unintelligent. First of all, it devalues lower wage earners, by (artifically) lowering their cost of living, and proportionally, their wages. Basically, wealthy tax-payers must hold on to the money what would otherwise be paid to the workers so that they can pay it in taxes later to provide the basic services. This means that the economic participation of lower-wage workers is unfairly understated.
Second of all, it dramatically reduces innovation in areas that are vitally important to quality of life. Artificially low transportation costs cause citizens to use inefficient means of transportation (cars) when a more efficient means could exist (think autonomous light rail transit). Moreover, the state monopolies prohibit other businesses from finding better solutions (for example, rails can't compete with highways, even though they are cheeper, and faster, and do not require a driver). Another good example is water usage, how hard do you think it would be to convince someone to buy a low-flow shower head if they had to pay what the water is really worth.
Monsanto products reduce the environmental impact of producing food by reducing the use of pesticides, and reducing the amount of land which must be farmed by increasing yields. They increase the availability of food by reducing the cost of producing food. Yes, the herbicide resistant crops are meant to be sprayed with herbicide, but most farmers already use some kind of herbicide, so you can hardly complain about replacing one toxic chemical with another. At least using round-up will increase yields more than using some other herbicide (since it's more effective).
"What makes you think you couldn't have those things without IP? Pool your money with like-minded people and take out a contract to have a show made."
Because, many people would choose to expend their resources elsewhere, viewing the above expense as unnecessary, then watch the shows anyway. Social loafing is a well understood problem. The more anonymity, the greater the problem, you can see that on the internet, anonymity is assured, and social loafing is therefore maximized. And if you think it's bad with entertainment, think about the technology industry, any money spent on R&D could be more effectively spent by flushing it down the toilet. In fact, many companies will keep R&D they've done secret, to keep some of their advantage on their competitors. One can imagine what this has cost society in terms of technological advancement, and it would be much worse without IP.
It's hard to imagine that we'd be where we are today without IP. Sure, it has it's problems, but it's nothing that can't be worked out.
"Why? Because there are all kinds of costs associated with being on a label and making records, and those costs are recoupable. In label lingo, "recoupable" simply means that the record company wants that money back. Not only do they want it back, but the artist is going to have to pay for it out of their share - those piddley 15 points less all the other percentage deductions - before seeing any cash themselves."
What does this mean? It means that artists won't see royalties until they've paid back the advance. So no, the label can not "sic collection agencies on them". The idea that they can is a myth perpetuated by people who want to prove recode labels are evil in every way imaginable.
Don't believe me, I've done a little searching. From this site: http://freeadvice.com/intellectual_property /music_ law/points_music_publishing_agreement.htm
"The advance is usually "nonrefundable and recoupable." Advances are "nonreturnable" because if the writer does not earn any royalties, the writer need not pay the advance back. "Recoupable" means if the writer's songs generates sufficient royalties to pay back the advance, the publisher gets to "recoup" its advance. Once the writer is "recouped", all additional income collected is split between the writer and the publisher in accordance with the agreed share. The only song writer royalty a publisher cannot recoup is income form public performances."
So it is pretty conclusive that they don't have to pay it back.
You want to do something to help the environment? Stop growing grass!!! It uses an immense amount of water, and provides (almost) nothing in return! Grow a garden instead, it'll use less water, and actually produce food. And if you don't use chemicals, it will be an inexpensive source of organic produce.
Bud does the term "debt" really apply is the artist is not legally obligated to pay it back? I mean, it's not like it's really debt.
Sure it sucks that the label keeps the rights to the music, but it's not really fair to expect them to put in the investment and get nothing back? They paid for the music after-all.
"Thus preventing the band from going out on their own and competing with the label's own established acts"
If the first album didn't sell well, I think it's safe to say the label isn't worried about the competition.
"You must not know many aspiring or published authors"
I wasn't talking about the authors not complaining, I was talking about all those "music wants to be free" morons not complaining.
Okay, here's what's going on. When a label signs you on to a contract, they give you an advance to cover your expenses. However, this advance and most other money a label gives you is "recoverable" which means that you must pay it back out of the royalties you earn. Since most signed artists don't ever sell anywhere near enough albums to pay back the advance, they never see any royalties.
But what all these articles imply is that the artist is then required to pay back the rest of the advance, and this is not true. The truth is, the artist ends up with nothing more than what they have left from the advance (probably nothing, since they had to pay to produce the album, travel to promote it and things like from the advance).
I think that this wrongly implies that artists are being exploited. You must remember that most of the artists they sign would never earn enough money to pay back the advance even it they got 100% royalties. Since the labels only make money on the really successful artists, it makes sense that they should pay royalties to only those artists. I might point out that the book industry works about the same way, but people don't complain about that.
"just about all bands make negative money from their first contract. This is important, if you sign with a label, you will end up in debt".
I've heard this claim many times before, but I can't find any information to back it up. Maybe you can, since you seem so confident about it's veracity. I think it might just be an urban legend. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'd just like some proof.
I'm sure that most bands record labels sign don't go on to make a second album, but I think that's mostly due to poor sales of their first album.
Maybe if a label offers you a contract, you should read the contract and determine if you will make money off of it. No sense selling your music for nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
"There is no such thing as IP. One cannot own ideas."
Well, why is plagiarism immoral? Everyone can agree that trying to pass off someone else's idea as your own is wrong, doesn't that imply that you have some control over how your ideas are disseminated? What is property? The ability to control the use of an object. Therefore, since plagiarism is immoral, the existence of intellectual property is implied.
"Falsely claiming authorship and nonprofit copying is the same?"
I did not make any statement regarding what intellectual property rights should be reserved. I merely said that it exists, and respecting intellectual property is important.
"I suppose next you were about to complain that they teach kids not to cheat on tests
That's called a strawman."
No it's not, it's called poking fun at the poster.
"Its bad form."
I know, it's hard to resist.
I thought the Boy Scouts were supposed to morals and leadership skills to future generations. I think respecting other peoples IP falls under the morals category. They already teach you not to plagiarize other peoples work, which is really the same thing, so I don't see why you find this so upsetting. I suppose next you were about to complain that they teach kids not to cheat on tests.
Shouldn't that be included under the IP merit badge, since it protects the intellectual property of open source developers.
I've never gotten in an accident while speeding, but I do feel a lot better about driving now that I've grown up and slowed down. If other people honk at you, let them honk, you shouldn't break the speed limit.
You didn't list the price. How does ~$1,000 sound?
I have the opposite problem. My mac is ~6 yrs old, but my monitor is brand new. I'm glad I bought a PowerMac, or I'd have been stuck with a CRT.
On the other hand, if I'd bought an iMac I'd probably have replaced it by now, and I'd have a faster computer with a better monitor, and the same overall expenditure over the last 6 years since powermacs are so expensive. So, it really does work out well to buy the iMac.
Besides, if you don't care about CPU, why not just buy the Mac Mini?
Isn't it strange that most European leaders seem to recognize that they need a less controlled economy to increase their quality of life, but seem unwilling or unable to take the steps necessary to bring that about?
Of course, the efficiency is related to the temperature of the cold reservoir being used and the temperature of the working fluid when it is heated. If you can heat it to 800K (typical for a HTGCR) )and then cool it to 3K (sometimes called the temperature of space), you'd have nearly complete efficiency (apart form the inefficiency of the turbines, that is). Obviously, on the earth there are practical reasons you cant get the temperature that low (you're pretty much stuck with 300K), but in space if you angled the radiators correctly and were relatively far form the sun, you could probably get it down to say 150 K, and have maybe 70% efficiency, rather than the 50% you'd get with a HTCGR on earth.
I'd say that just about sums up the situation around here. I can't believe how many people will openly say that the people on slascdot think what they do because they are smarter than everyone else. What a bunch of crap.
Or, maybe people like to hire people they know and trust for the more obvious reason. They know and trust them! Think about it, if you know someone who could get the job done, that you could trust, and who you know would be a good employee, why would you bother to look for other "more qualified" applicants. It would be an idiotic waste of time, and a very poor decision. That's the reason the best way to get a job is to know someone who already works there.
They don't want truckers to use state provided bandwidth to download porn. What's wrong with that? Some people might consider the use of state funds to provide pornographic content somewhat . . . wasteful.
Those ads fund the sites you visit. The sites could not exist (for "free") without the ads. Same goes for T.V.. What's worse, the more people use ad blockers, the more ads web sites need to put out there to keep the site up. These extra ads are using up bandwidth and slowing everything down.
No matter how you look at it, it's socially irresponsible to use add blocker, you're basically making someone else pay for your entertainment, and wasting everyones time and money in general.
Judging by the website design, I think this reviewer suffers from a distinct lack of taste.
It's probably safe to say that he's just unsatisfied with the screen adaptation, and that no movie shorter than six hours in length could've satisfied him.
I'll hold out on judging the movie until I've actually seen it.
The parrent specifically said that he didn't care what SBC wanted, and then you told him what you thought SBC wanted. Just though I'd point that out.
Well, if the parrent was wrong, the grand parrent was really wrong.
"But a possible amendment to House Bill 789 would prohibit city-sponsored Internet service."
It sounds like this bill will only partially restrict municipal wireless, and not restrict private wireless hotspots at all. Someone should really mod the grandparrent down, he is dead wrong.
"And the government needs to asses the cost of negative externalities, and charge that cost to the appropriate party."
I have already addressed your concern. If you don't know what a negative externality is, look it up. You assume that I am a rabid no-nothing libertarian without just cause.
So you honestly believe that it would be impossible for people to live with-ought the government? You may be surprised to learn that there was a time when people did in deed live without "government-funded police, fire, roads, schools, courts, public health (meat inspection, etc.), regulation of water/power/phone companies, pollution standards, defense, etc." In fact, many of those things didn't exist in this country until a few hundred years ago (in many cases even less time).
You should ask yourself, do I really need the government to provide all these things? Would I be able to survive without the king of massive government intervention which exists today? Think about it. Could a private, for-profit company provide police enforcement and fire protection. If you think that they'd be too corrupt, you must bear in mind that a business is not immune to lawsuits the same way the government is. Could a private company provide transportation? Many people seem to think that the company that owns the roads would have a complete monopoly, but there are alternative forms of transportation (light rail, air travel, heavy rail) that could provide competition and innovation where none exists today. Perhaps regulation of businesses could be done by private companies as well. A "standards" company could draft a standard, then charge money to businesses wishing to comply to that standard, the standards company would then perform inspections to assure compliance, and assume partial or full liability when the standard is not upheld. Likewise, defense could be privately funded, assuming that each citizen was legally obligated to provide for defense (either by volunteering time or money to approved defense related activities).
Don't get me wrong, the government it very necessary when it comes to enforcing the rule of law. Without that service, it would be up to people to enforce their own contracts, and assert their own rights. And the government needs to asses the cost of negative externalities, and charge that cost to the appropriate party. But I don't see that we really NEED the government to do anything more than that.
In fact, using the government to provide basic services strikes me as particularly unintelligent. First of all, it devalues lower wage earners, by (artifically) lowering their cost of living, and proportionally, their wages. Basically, wealthy tax-payers must hold on to the money what would otherwise be paid to the workers so that they can pay it in taxes later to provide the basic services. This means that the economic participation of lower-wage workers is unfairly understated.
Second of all, it dramatically reduces innovation in areas that are vitally important to quality of life. Artificially low transportation costs cause citizens to use inefficient means of transportation (cars) when a more efficient means could exist (think autonomous light rail transit). Moreover, the state monopolies prohibit other businesses from finding better solutions (for example, rails can't compete with highways, even though they are cheeper, and faster, and do not require a driver). Another good example is water usage, how hard do you think it would be to convince someone to buy a low-flow shower head if they had to pay what the water is really worth.
I think that by advertisers, they might have been referring to businesses that will benefit from having more traffic down town.
You said it.
"Reducing the environmental impact??"
Monsanto products reduce the environmental impact of producing food by reducing the use of pesticides, and reducing the amount of land which must be farmed by increasing yields. They increase the availability of food by reducing the cost of producing food. Yes, the herbicide resistant crops are meant to be sprayed with herbicide, but most farmers already use some kind of herbicide, so you can hardly complain about replacing one toxic chemical with another. At least using round-up will increase yields more than using some other herbicide (since it's more effective).
"What makes you think you couldn't have those things without IP? Pool your money with like-minded people and take out a contract to have a show made."
Because, many people would choose to expend their resources elsewhere, viewing the above expense as unnecessary, then watch the shows anyway. Social loafing is a well understood problem. The more anonymity, the greater the problem, you can see that on the internet, anonymity is assured, and social loafing is therefore maximized. And if you think it's bad with entertainment, think about the technology industry, any money spent on R&D could be more effectively spent by flushing it down the toilet. In fact, many companies will keep R&D they've done secret, to keep some of their advantage on their competitors. One can imagine what this has cost society in terms of technological advancement, and it would be much worse without IP.
It's hard to imagine that we'd be where we are today without IP. Sure, it has it's problems, but it's nothing that can't be worked out.
"Why? Because there are all kinds of costs associated with being on a label and making records, and those costs are recoupable. In label lingo, "recoupable" simply means that the record company wants that money back. Not only do they want it back, but the artist is going to have to pay for it out of their share - those piddley 15 points less all the other percentage deductions - before seeing any cash themselves."
y /music_ law/points_music_publishing_agreement.htm
What does this mean? It means that artists won't see royalties until they've paid back the advance. So no, the label can not "sic collection agencies on them". The idea that they can is a myth perpetuated by people who want to prove recode labels are evil in every way imaginable.
Don't believe me, I've done a little searching. From this site:
http://freeadvice.com/intellectual_propert
"The advance is usually "nonrefundable and recoupable." Advances are "nonreturnable" because if the writer does not earn any royalties, the writer need not pay the advance back. "Recoupable" means if the writer's songs generates sufficient royalties to pay back the advance, the publisher gets to "recoup" its advance. Once the writer is "recouped", all additional income collected is split between the writer and the publisher in accordance with the agreed share. The only song writer royalty a publisher cannot recoup is income form public performances."
So it is pretty conclusive that they don't have to pay it back.
You want to do something to help the environment? Stop growing grass!!! It uses an immense amount of water, and provides (almost) nothing in return! Grow a garden instead, it'll use less water, and actually produce food. And if you don't use chemicals, it will be an inexpensive source of organic produce.
Bud does the term "debt" really apply is the artist is not legally obligated to pay it back? I mean, it's not like it's really debt.
Sure it sucks that the label keeps the rights to the music, but it's not really fair to expect them to put in the investment and get nothing back? They paid for the music after-all.
"Thus preventing the band from going out on their own and competing with the label's own established acts"
If the first album didn't sell well, I think it's safe to say the label isn't worried about the competition.
"You must not know many aspiring or published authors"
I wasn't talking about the authors not complaining, I was talking about all those "music wants to be free" morons not complaining.
Okay, here's what's going on. When a label signs you on to a contract, they give you an advance to cover your expenses. However, this advance and most other money a label gives you is "recoverable" which means that you must pay it back out of the royalties you earn. Since most signed artists don't ever sell anywhere near enough albums to pay back the advance, they never see any royalties.
But what all these articles imply is that the artist is then required to pay back the rest of the advance, and this is not true. The truth is, the artist ends up with nothing more than what they have left from the advance (probably nothing, since they had to pay to produce the album, travel to promote it and things like from the advance).
I think that this wrongly implies that artists are being exploited. You must remember that most of the artists they sign would never earn enough money to pay back the advance even it they got 100% royalties. Since the labels only make money on the really successful artists, it makes sense that they should pay royalties to only those artists. I might point out that the book industry works about the same way, but people don't complain about that.
Could you please back up your claim that:
"just about all bands make negative money from their first contract. This is important, if you sign with a label, you will end up in debt".
I've heard this claim many times before, but I can't find any information to back it up. Maybe you can, since you seem so confident about it's veracity. I think it might just be an urban legend. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'd just like some proof.
I'm sure that most bands record labels sign don't go on to make a second album, but I think that's mostly due to poor sales of their first album.
Maybe if a label offers you a contract, you should read the contract and determine if you will make money off of it. No sense selling your music for nothing.