Well, many years ago people though that way. As a result they enacted an amendment which brought about "prohibition". After a while it was discovered that Alcohol was so engraved in our culture, that the amendment had merely forced the alcohol trade underground, bringing about a huge illicit trade and organized crime in general. Eventually people realized that despite the general consensus among the population that alcohol is bad, prohibition had done more harm than good and the amendment was repealed. I hope this has been a fun history lesson, it's too bad more congressmen haven't heard about this.
I guess it could concede feudalism, or some other form or totalitarianism. At any rate, it does not mean that individuals will be sovereign and free willed to do as they please. Since only a few people will be involved in production capability, all the rest will have nothing with which to leverage themselves. They will, therefore, not have any choice regarding their own lives. The result will be a welfare state akin to many middle eastern countries where a few people produce all the oil, and the rest have nothing.
I think I'd prefer communism to any of those other options. Or we could just admit that intellectual property does, in fact, exist.
"when a product is sold in a supermarket everyone gets paid, from the person at the till who takes the cash, the boy who pushes the carts back to entrance of the store, to the farmer and his helpers who grow the food"
This is similar to the way a company pays its R&D employees, who in tern paid for their own school, which paid it's professors, who propagated the intellectual property in the first place. You see, it's the same. It's just a little more abstract.
And no, I don't believe a company should own a patent forever and neither does anyone else. Copyrights also should not last forever, but most of the music we're talking about was produced recently anyway. I do not support unlimited copyrights on music, but I do support the rights of media corporations to sell music.
Speaking of money and power, how much money do you suppose government makes on cigarette and Alcohol taxes? A lot more than they would even if they did work all the drug offenders for next to nothing (but they only really work some of them). Do you thing you drug problem has to be with illegal drugs to get you in trouble? Many many people have lost all credibility due to problems with Alcohol. Furthermore, the government spends way more maintaining and staffing prisons than they could ever make hiring out prisoners.
I won't disagree with you on the status quo, but drug charges aren't particularly harsh on the people who do drugs. You have to have a lot on you before your in real trouble. This means that the government is mostly targeting supply, rather than the users themselves.
On a side note, the CIA really is way out of control, but then again there have been recent congressional commissions which have said as much. I think it's safe to say that most people in the government feel this way.
No one is buying laws. Most people in this country oppose online piracy. Government officials cannot contradict public opinion and remain in office. If you are downloading music illegally, you are causing this right to be taken away. Don't try to absolve yourself of responsibility blaming The Government or those Evil Corporations, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Intellectual property is not the only product of society. Any item you buy is the result of the combined work of thousands of individuals. If what you say is correct, than a supermarket has no right to sell you food, and you have no right to say that you own any property at all. Just because your work is based on the work of others does not mean it is not yours.
If you are a philanthropist, it is your right to give away intellectual property, but you have not right to stipulate that others must do the same.
"some people actually think this will be a viable method for sustaining wealth when our manufacuring industries are gone"
No, some people just think that in the future everything along those lines will be automated, therefore involve a much smaller portion of the population. As a result, most economic activity will be intellectual in nature. Therefore the continued existence of a capitalist economy requires intellectual property. It's pretty simple really.
"I would accept your position if I could believe for even 5 seconds that it is only the welfare of the nation that the government has in mind, as opposed to their welfare as a government to stay in power."
Okay, wouldn't it be easier for the government to stay in power if much of the public was totally stoned out of it's mind? Why would people want to ban drugs except to protect the public? there is literally no other reason.
On a side note, artists most certainly do make money form their music sales, that's why they all live in mansions. Just because the don't get a large portion form each sale doesn't mean the label didn't give them a huge advance when they signened. Live shows aren't their bread and butter because they can't reach nearly as large an audience that way. It doesn't mean that something's gone wrong.
You're archaic viewpoint is out of place on slashdot. Most of the people here make their living producing intellectual property. If you don't believe that intellectual property is worth anything, you should tell that to all the companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on R&D. You should tell that to Scaled Composites, or ARM, who do not produce any product, yet still have expenses and make profits. If it were really as worthless, as you claim, it would not be quite so expensive to produce.
I don't have a problem with legitimate online music stores, as the letter said, Apple and Sony have not infringed the rights of the intellectual property owners. You're right that the RIAA member companies were pretty stupid not to embrace online music when they had the chance, but that was their choice. The RIAA is just pissing in the wind by trying to delay their own obsolesce, but that can do that if they want to and it doesn't hurt anyone.
You probably do. I hate laws and big government. I just wish more people felt the same way so that they would depending on the government to make the right choices for them.
Well I appreciate that none of us wants to live in an Orwellian nightmare, I can't say that it's entirely undeserved. We had the right to share files freely, and we abused it. The results are detrimental to society, and therefore that right is now being taken away. People can complain about it all they want, but the fact is that intellectual property is this countries largest export and it will be the basis of the future economy of the world. This being true, it is the responsibility of every world citizen to respect intellectual property and behave appropriately.
It's easy to rationalize that it's okay because it's just the music industry, and the RIAA and their respective labels don't actually make music. The fact is if people don't respect the music industry, they should not buy or listen to it's music. There are lots of other ways to support music, buying indy music, attending live shows, donating money. Notice that none of those options involve not compensating artists whose livelihoods depend on music. If this were about social revolution, people would not be stealing music, they would be supporting local and independent artists.
This is a lot like why people can't legally do drugs. Too many people are irresponsible about it, and it ruins it for the rest of us. People need to learn to take responsibility for their actions rather than blame the government or big business for their own indiscretions. That fact is you simply can't have rights if you refuse to take the responsibility to not abuse them.
That's market share, not installed base. Apple only accounts for 2.8% of the desktops sold annually, but that is not directly comparable to their installed base. If the average Apple user kept his computer for twice as long as the average PC user, Apple's installed base would be 5.6% of all the desktops currently in use. It's a commonly held assumption that Mac users hold onto their computers longer, though I've never seen any statistics to back this up. It's makes little difference, I know, but it's so common for people to make this mistake that I had to say something.
"your minimum investment into a Macintosh is a $799 eMac, which is more expensive than that $499 Dell"
I have a big problem with this line of thinking. Why are people so unwilling to pay a little more for a product that will last twice as long? My old powermac G4 is 4 1/2 years old and it still runs like new. None of my PC using friends have a computer over three years old. By the time I replace my powermac, it'll be 6 years old and it'll still be working fine. How many PC's continue to run main stream software after 6 years?
And this line of thinking isn't just about computers, people are always looking for the lowest prices, and don't give a damn about quality. Look at the stuff wal-mart sells. None of it is made to last more than a few months (not even their shoes!!!) and people still eat that crap up like candy. People need to realize that it's cheaper in the long-run to pay for higher quality now. It's almost getting to the point where companies can't stay in business selling high quality products, because consumers are willing to spend so much more on low price items that they have to buy over and over again.
Apple is a vertical monopoly, meaning that they control all the aspects of the products they sell. Sure, you can play MP3's on the iPod, but you can't play DRM WMAs. This means that you need to buy music for your iPod from Apples store , and you need to play music you purchase on Apple's store on their player.
No, this isn't illegal, and does not necessary imply abuse on Apple's part. The potential for abuse still exists though.
I read an article on the New York Times criticizing Apple for not offering lossless songs. The Apple representative said they felt most users would automatically download the lossless songs thinking that they're better, then not understand when the songs took a lot longer to download and you could only fit a couple hundred on the 40 Gb iPod which apple said could hold 10,000.
That said, that fact that iTunes and the iPod now support lossless does indicate the potential intent on Apples part to offer music in that format. They'd just need to figure out a way around that whole user confusion thing.
Yes, that's right, just like we have for the last couple hundred thousand years. The odds that we'd ever need use one are so miniscule that it's practically guaranteed to never be used for it's intended purpose. On the other hand, the technology probably has many potential applications.
Not only does it accurately represent the potential effectiveness of this particular program, but also the necessity for an asteroid defense program in general. But I suspect the technology could be useful someday, likely for something other than the defense of the Earth from asteroids.
No moe people can claim that DeCSS is perfectly okay because you can't buy a commercial DVD player for LUNIX. What's that? It's still perfectly okay? I just don't understand some people.
I know this is probably too late to be posting this, but here goes:
Step 1: State that Apple's small market share is a sure sign of impending doom.
Step 2: Suggest that apples competitors have the right idea and that Apple should also make low cost, shitty computers that crap out in a couple months just like everyone else.
Step 3: Complain that apple won't sell you a really cheap computer like you want them to, point out several other complains that make shitty products and again state that Apple should do the same.
I've been hearing this crap like this for more than 10 years, and I'm only 22. I can't believe that pompous assholes like this continue to believe that they know how to run the company better than Apple. People are always complaining "why can't I buy an Apple for the price of a Packard Bell/ Compaq / Dell?". I'll tell you why, those companies make shitty computers and Apple makes quality computers, that's why. And you know what? Apples plan worked a lot better than did Packard Bells or Compaqs(both bought out when they hit hard times). That fact is that business plan only works until everyone has bought one and realized how crappie the computers are. I'm sure that Dell will eventually suffer the same fate, I know about a dozen people that have Dells, and none of them are happy with their purchase. On the other hand, Apple users love their computers, and will continue to be loyal to the Apple brand as long as they live. To bad they only replace their computers every 5 years or so.
I live in Idaho, which isn't really a hotbed of apple activity. That said I do know a number of Mac Users. Of course, I am a Mac user, and we do try to seek other mac users out so that we can find someone to relate to. My girlfriend was a PC user, but it was only because she didn't know any better. It only took about six months before she bought one. Now her fathers buying one too, that's after half of his family told him macs couldn't network. I can't believe some of the things PC users think about macs.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, many years ago people though that way. As a result they enacted an amendment which brought about "prohibition". After a while it was discovered that Alcohol was so engraved in our culture, that the amendment had merely forced the alcohol trade underground, bringing about a huge illicit trade and organized crime in general. Eventually people realized that despite the general consensus among the population that alcohol is bad, prohibition had done more harm than good and the amendment was repealed. I hope this has been a fun history lesson, it's too bad more congressmen haven't heard about this.
I guess it could concede feudalism, or some other form or totalitarianism. At any rate, it does not mean that individuals will be sovereign and free willed to do as they please. Since only a few people will be involved in production capability, all the rest will have nothing with which to leverage themselves. They will, therefore, not have any choice regarding their own lives. The result will be a welfare state akin to many middle eastern countries where a few people produce all the oil, and the rest have nothing.
I think I'd prefer communism to any of those other options. Or we could just admit that intellectual property does, in fact, exist.
"when a product is sold in a supermarket everyone gets paid, from the person at the till who takes the cash, the boy who pushes the carts back to entrance of the store, to the farmer and his helpers who grow the food"
This is similar to the way a company pays its R&D employees, who in tern paid for their own school, which paid it's professors, who propagated the intellectual property in the first place. You see, it's the same. It's just a little more abstract.
And no, I don't believe a company should own a patent forever and neither does anyone else. Copyrights also should not last forever, but most of the music we're talking about was produced recently anyway. I do not support unlimited copyrights on music, but I do support the rights of media corporations to sell music.
Speaking of money and power, how much money do you suppose government makes on cigarette and Alcohol taxes? A lot more than they would even if they did work all the drug offenders for next to nothing (but they only really work some of them). Do you thing you drug problem has to be with illegal drugs to get you in trouble? Many many people have lost all credibility due to problems with Alcohol. Furthermore, the government spends way more maintaining and staffing prisons than they could ever make hiring out prisoners.
I won't disagree with you on the status quo, but drug charges aren't particularly harsh on the people who do drugs. You have to have a lot on you before your in real trouble. This means that the government is mostly targeting supply, rather than the users themselves.
On a side note, the CIA really is way out of control, but then again there have been recent congressional commissions which have said as much. I think it's safe to say that most people in the government feel this way.
If that's what you want, there you go. I am not a communist myself, but I have no problem with those who are.
No one is buying laws. Most people in this country oppose online piracy. Government officials cannot contradict public opinion and remain in office. If you are downloading music illegally, you are causing this right to be taken away. Don't try to absolve yourself of responsibility blaming The Government or those Evil Corporations, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Intellectual property is not the only product of society. Any item you buy is the result of the combined work of thousands of individuals. If what you say is correct, than a supermarket has no right to sell you food, and you have no right to say that you own any property at all. Just because your work is based on the work of others does not mean it is not yours.
If you are a philanthropist, it is your right to give away intellectual property, but you have not right to stipulate that others must do the same.
"some people actually think this will be a viable method for sustaining wealth when our manufacuring industries are gone"
No, some people just think that in the future everything along those lines will be automated, therefore involve a much smaller portion of the population. As a result, most economic activity will be intellectual in nature. Therefore the continued existence of a capitalist economy requires intellectual property. It's pretty simple really.
"I would accept your position if I could believe for even 5 seconds that it is only the welfare of the nation that the government has in mind, as opposed to their welfare as a government to stay in power."
Okay, wouldn't it be easier for the government to stay in power if much of the public was totally stoned out of it's mind? Why would people want to ban drugs except to protect the public? there is literally no other reason.
On a side note, artists most certainly do make money form their music sales, that's why they all live in mansions. Just because the don't get a large portion form each sale doesn't mean the label didn't give them a huge advance when they signened. Live shows aren't their bread and butter because they can't reach nearly as large an audience that way. It doesn't mean that something's gone wrong.
You're archaic viewpoint is out of place on slashdot. Most of the people here make their living producing intellectual property. If you don't believe that intellectual property is worth anything, you should tell that to all the companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on R&D. You should tell that to Scaled Composites, or ARM, who do not produce any product, yet still have expenses and make profits. If it were really as worthless, as you claim, it would not be quite so expensive to produce.
I don't have a problem with legitimate online music stores, as the letter said, Apple and Sony have not infringed the rights of the intellectual property owners. You're right that the RIAA member companies were pretty stupid not to embrace online music when they had the chance, but that was their choice. The RIAA is just pissing in the wind by trying to delay their own obsolesce, but that can do that if they want to and it doesn't hurt anyone.
You probably do. I hate laws and big government. I just wish more people felt the same way so that they would depending on the government to make the right choices for them.
Well I appreciate that none of us wants to live in an Orwellian nightmare, I can't say that it's entirely undeserved. We had the right to share files freely, and we abused it. The results are detrimental to society, and therefore that right is now being taken away. People can complain about it all they want, but the fact is that intellectual property is this countries largest export and it will be the basis of the future economy of the world. This being true, it is the responsibility of every world citizen to respect intellectual property and behave appropriately.
It's easy to rationalize that it's okay because it's just the music industry, and the RIAA and their respective labels don't actually make music. The fact is if people don't respect the music industry, they should not buy or listen to it's music. There are lots of other ways to support music, buying indy music, attending live shows, donating money. Notice that none of those options involve not compensating artists whose livelihoods depend on music. If this were about social revolution, people would not be stealing music, they would be supporting local and independent artists.
This is a lot like why people can't legally do drugs. Too many people are irresponsible about it, and it ruins it for the rest of us. People need to learn to take responsibility for their actions rather than blame the government or big business for their own indiscretions. That fact is you simply can't have rights if you refuse to take the responsibility to not abuse them.
That's market share, not installed base. Apple only accounts for 2.8% of the desktops sold annually, but that is not directly comparable to their installed base. If the average Apple user kept his computer for twice as long as the average PC user, Apple's installed base would be 5.6% of all the desktops currently in use. It's a commonly held assumption that Mac users hold onto their computers longer, though I've never seen any statistics to back this up. It's makes little difference, I know, but it's so common for people to make this mistake that I had to say something.
"your minimum investment into a Macintosh is a $799 eMac, which is more expensive than that $499 Dell"
I have a big problem with this line of thinking. Why are people so unwilling to pay a little more for a product that will last twice as long? My old powermac G4 is 4 1/2 years old and it still runs like new. None of my PC using friends have a computer over three years old. By the time I replace my powermac, it'll be 6 years old and it'll still be working fine. How many PC's continue to run main stream software after 6 years?
And this line of thinking isn't just about computers, people are always looking for the lowest prices, and don't give a damn about quality. Look at the stuff wal-mart sells. None of it is made to last more than a few months (not even their shoes!!!) and people still eat that crap up like candy. People need to realize that it's cheaper in the long-run to pay for higher quality now. It's almost getting to the point where companies can't stay in business selling high quality products, because consumers are willing to spend so much more on low price items that they have to buy over and over again.
Apple is a vertical monopoly, meaning that they control all the aspects of the products they sell. Sure, you can play MP3's on the iPod, but you can't play DRM WMAs. This means that you need to buy music for your iPod from Apples store , and you need to play music you purchase on Apple's store on their player.
No, this isn't illegal, and does not necessary imply abuse on Apple's part. The potential for abuse still exists though.
At least the RIAA doesn't censor it's music selection.
I read an article on the New York Times criticizing Apple for not offering lossless songs. The Apple representative said they felt most users would automatically download the lossless songs thinking that they're better, then not understand when the songs took a lot longer to download and you could only fit a couple hundred on the 40 Gb iPod which apple said could hold 10,000.
That said, that fact that iTunes and the iPod now support lossless does indicate the potential intent on Apples part to offer music in that format. They'd just need to figure out a way around that whole user confusion thing.
"the best MP3 player..."
:P
Actually, I'd have wanted an iPod mini, but Apple probably couldn't spare any of those
Yes, that's right, just like we have for the last couple hundred thousand years. The odds that we'd ever need use one are so miniscule that it's practically guaranteed to never be used for it's intended purpose. On the other hand, the technology probably has many potential applications.
Not only does it accurately represent the potential effectiveness of this particular program, but also the necessity for an asteroid defense program in general. But I suspect the technology could be useful someday, likely for something other than the defense of the Earth from asteroids.
No moe people can claim that DeCSS is perfectly okay because you can't buy a commercial DVD player for LUNIX. What's that? It's still perfectly okay? I just don't understand some people.
I know this is probably too late to be posting this, but here goes:
Step 1: State that Apple's small market share is a sure sign of impending doom.
Step 2: Suggest that apples competitors have the right idea and that Apple should also make low cost, shitty computers that crap out in a couple months just like everyone else.
Step 3: Complain that apple won't sell you a really cheap computer like you want them to, point out several other complains that make shitty products and again state that Apple should do the same.
I've been hearing this crap like this for more than 10 years, and I'm only 22. I can't believe that pompous assholes like this continue to believe that they know how to run the company better than Apple. People are always complaining "why can't I buy an Apple for the price of a Packard Bell/ Compaq / Dell?". I'll tell you why, those companies make shitty computers and Apple makes quality computers, that's why. And you know what? Apples plan worked a lot better than did Packard Bells or Compaqs(both bought out when they hit hard times). That fact is that business plan only works until everyone has bought one and realized how crappie the computers are. I'm sure that Dell will eventually suffer the same fate, I know about a dozen people that have Dells, and none of them are happy with their purchase. On the other hand, Apple users love their computers, and will continue to be loyal to the Apple brand as long as they live. To bad they only replace their computers every 5 years or so.
I live in Idaho, which isn't really a hotbed of apple activity. That said I do know a number of Mac Users. Of course, I am a Mac user, and we do try to seek other mac users out so that we can find someone to relate to. My girlfriend was a PC user, but it was only because she didn't know any better. It only took about six months before she bought one. Now her fathers buying one too, that's after half of his family told him macs couldn't network. I can't believe some of the things PC users think about macs.
So don't invest in them. They still make some kick-ass computers. Anyone who buys anything else is doing themselves a big disservice.