So are you honestly suggesting that the salaried employees that bring in millions of dollars with their inventions or solve particularly difficult problems should be paid the same as those who aren't profitable at all or stick to the routine?
No, he is suggesting that if you have a contract, you honor it. And if you don't like the terms of the contract for hire, you leave.
Why should an employer be faced to pay someone more money than what their contract calls for?
The fact is, they shouldn't, and they won't be. This lawsuit would have failed in the US, and rightly so.
This lawsuit was won... in Japan.
The rest of your post is trying to apply what happened in this case with Capitalism in general, and it fails.
I thought that in capitalism, we reward those with harder jobs who perform well because otherwise "no one would do them."
Then you don't understand capitalism. Honestly, does the guy who cleans the shit out of toilets make or deserve more money than someone who doesn't? Well, in your warped view of Capitalism, they should, right? Who wants to clean turds up?
However, that job requires no formal education, no planning, and really, no thinking.
Capitalism rewards those that put forth ingenuity, time, hard work, skill, and/or luck.
Why is it that culturally, we reward people who run companies
We don't. They run the companies. If the companies they run sucked badly enough, they'd lose employees and profits and they'd cease to be a company, and the CEO would not make a penny.
Does it bother you that your time and effort, no matter how productive or brilliant, is worth shit unless you're an executive?
So what your saying is, some entity, maybe the government, should decide what everyone gets paid, based on how "worthy" of the money you think they are?
To you my fellow youngings: stick to the university life......
The improved technology does nothing for improving a childs ability to learn.
Seeing as how this product has not even been released yet, I find this statement patently absurd.
Or did you mean to imply that no technology is helpful in teaching students. That the book, invented thousands of years ago, is the highest mountain we can hope to reach in teaching aids?
Sheesh. Let me introduce some sense here where it is sorely needed: Any tool like this can help or hinder a student depending on how it is allowed to be used.
Giving a kid a book or this pen will do nothing without a teacher or parent helping them with it, in most cases.
What ever happened to kids playing with teddy bears, or learning from reading books?
Nothing. This still happens. However, believe it or not, with improved technology comes possibilities for improved learning. Maybe with the right tools, kids can learn to read and write and calculate at earlier ages, when their brains are more pliable.
Then again, you probably think Kids shouldn't have pre-school, and they should just get shoved into a government run public school when they turn 5 or 6, and "that will learn them."
well, it's an industry that pays millons to the main actors and director.
Yes, it is a free market.
If the first thing to give after a little piracy is the painter's pay, then I do feel really sorry for the guy.. they should get a union or something..
What if someone told you, I'm sorry you're getting paid less (or fired) because I am busy taking your company's product for free instead of paying for it, but HEY, why don't you join a union or something?
Yeah.
It almost makes you whish they'd just put the actors to whine in front of the camera.. "I used to make millions, and now thanks to those evil pirates, I get paid less than the painter.. the fucking PAINTER!!"
The actors make the most money because they get people (outside of the freeloaders on the net) to fork over the money. Without those A-list actors, the movies don't do as well, and everyone gets less money.
However, you will RARELY find a movie that is spending most of its budget on the cast...
Most people understand that P2P will increase record sales and concert attendance manyfold.
While I agree that P2P will increase concert attendence, I have seen no evidence that it increases (or decreases) record sales.
However, an album is something that people usually listen to many times.
What about movies? They cost more to produce than albums. The making of them employs more people than the making of albums. People typically only watch a movie one time.
I don't see any beneficial effect of piracy on movies. People download them from the internet for free instead of renting/buying a DVD, or in the case of many new leaks, instead of buying a ticket to watch it in the theatre.
If there is no end to this trend, hollywood will have to produce less movies. While many will say, good, that will weed out the crap, it will also mean many good movies may not get made.
I do find it amusing how many people try to justify the act of taking something for free, against the creator's wishes, and really, against what most of us know is just wrong.
What makes you think the only artists who made a living are the ones whose works are still around today ?
Because most of the famous artists I can name were paid to produce their works. How about you?
Depriving them of what, exactly ? They all got paid while they were working (and the movie industry is hardly going broke).
Take some lessons in economics. If the movie industry sees a slowdown in ticket sales or DVD sales, they'll produce less movies, they'll hire less crew to work on those movies, they'll pay less cities and businesses for the right to use their facilities to shoot the movies. One thing leads to another, the movies aren't made in a vacuum.
Profits (income, salary, wage) for the common people are independent of piracy.
Prove it. Nothing you posted proves anything.
The only profits that will be hurt are those for the CEOs and execs
Says you. It all has an effect on the little guy. If the company isn't making enough money, they'll hire fewer people or offer lower wages. If the market dries up due to piracy, they'll make fewer movies.
I can't feel sorry for anyone who has more than 6 months rent in the bank
So according to your morals, it's ok to steal from someone if they are successful in business?
If they don't want to take the chance in business they're free to quit selling the CDs to pirates. How they figure it out is not my problem. Once they legally sell a CD to a pirate it's not my problem. They know exactly what a pirate will do with a CD. It's not my problem to figure out how they choose their customers. If they can't do it right they shouldn't be in business.
Then I am assuming you are not outraged when they punish pirates caught selling CDs? That's the only point I'm pursuing. Time in jail, no way, but I support restitution, absolutely.
*nudge* North is that way. *pointing*
I'll not take directions from someone who thinks it's ever ok to steal, thanks.
I don't want to be a big, wet blanket here, and I don't want to say nothing has been accomplished; it was a necessary first step. But it ain't space travel. Orbital insertions are two orders of magnitude harder.
Exactly. Let me summarize, people.
Step 1. Take a Virgin into space. Step 2. Orbital insertion. Step 3. PROFIT!!!
There's nothing wrong with borrowing a movie from the public library. It's the same as renting it, because the library paid a special price to be allowed to rent it out to people "for free." And they have a limited number of copies of each movie, so it's not like you're at "the free blockbuster." That's how they get away with it.
But I hope you can recognize the difference between borrowing a finite object from a place that has paid for a license to be able to offer that object to you, and downloading a movie permanently from a freeloader.
I'd argue that most do, either at their art, or at something else which allows them to execute their art in their "spare time".
Ever heard of the term "starving artist"? It's pretty popular. And I'll tell you flat out that most artists do NOT make money, and if they are doing their art in their spare time, they are not able to take their art seriously.
Modern IP laws and modern recording contracts exist largely to benefit the record companies and a VERY FEW "artists". I know many musicians, including my daughter, who make a living as musicians without having heard of the RIAA or ever having published a composition or recording. For comparison, I know zero musicians who have recording contracts with an RIAA-member company. I doubt I'm unique in this.
So what? What is your point, that because you don't know that many, that therefore it's ok to infringe their copyrights and not pay them any money for their work and the way they have chosen to sell their work?
I happen to know a few artists that are signed to RIAA labels, and some that aren't.
I think the RIAA and its tactics suck, I think they are short-sighted and will ultimately fatally shoot themselves in the foot, but until they are down the drain, I don't think it's right to decide to let thousands of people download thousands of songs and movies for free, just because it's technically possible.
Sampling music is one thing. I have no problem with it if you go out and buy the album later. But downloading a movie illegally and watching it rather than renting it, watching it via cable, or buying the DVD, is absolutely stealing that content and ultimately it hurts all the people that work on the movies. It's not just A-list stars, but all those thousands of people you see listed in the end credits.
Mankind got by for countless milennia before this whole concept of "paying for music" started. Need I remind you that all over the world, there are these people called "musicians" who generally like to play on these things called "instruments" and produce noise called "music."
And how much quality work is available to us from these older times, where the work wasn't paid for by an audience, a king, or a benefactor? Not much. Even Mozart's brilliance was bottled for money. Most artists need to make a living to survive.
Download that movie for free, and directly or indirectly, you are depriving the hundreds and thousands of crew members and artists that worked to create it and future movies. It's just a fact.
Music isn't the issue. What is at issue is the insane idea that you can own music, and that your grandchildren can live off of performances that were recorded before they were even born, long after you are dead.
If that's the issue, then work to change copyright laws. However, you don't have the right to infringe copyrights now, and most of the people on slashdot that do it are not infringing these old works you mention, but the latest coming out of hollywood and the media giants.
I'm so sick of this, "Great, just what we need, people [using a new invention], while driving!" whine.
Some people are just BAD DRIVERS. They don't need a new invention to make suck, they just do. Whether it be bad judgement or poor hand-to-eye coordination. If some moron was going to watch TV on his phone while driving, trust me, he or she (ok, she), was going to do something equally stupid while driving.
That is why you must learn the art of defensive driving, which can be boiled down to the idea that, "everyone else around you is a fucking idiot."
They could license their implementation of Fairplay to other portable MP3 player manufacturers like iRiver and Creative.
But the reason they built iTunes was to sell iPods.
To get the best experience you need iTunes, an iPod, and a Mac.
No, to get the best experience you need iTunes and an iPod. No Mac needed. I have Windows, it works exactly the same as my brother's pod+tunes on Mac.
You have to jump through hoops, degrading the audio quality of the music in the process to use the music you've purchased through iTunes on anything else.
That's right. And it's not a secret. Apple: iTunes + iPod. They didn't pitch you on iTunes and tell you it works with anything else but iPod.
They are anti-competitive by design.
Hmmm, I really fail to see the anti-competitive aspect. Apple is competing against other software/hardware makers. They built an esteemed digital music player that people drool over. They built a great digital music store that people love. You can buy the iPod and listen to MP3s on it. You can use iTunes to manage your MP3s or buy music to listen to on your computer. The killer combo is iTunes + iPod.
Just because they don't open both of those up for the whole world to resell doesn't mean their being anti-competitive. They are selling two products, and people are buying them.
Better image quality leads to less squinting and less eyestrain and/or headaches.
That's not true at all if you're dealing with text all day. I would say images and videos look better on a CRT, but text is absolutely crisp on an LCD, and it is nigh impossible to get the same level of sharpness on CRTs.
Slashdot Mirror
Man. What is happening to /. ???
It's no longer a haven for socialists?
Generally speaking are the Slashdotters just hitting their 30s and turning into self preserving money making capitalists?
Well I've been one since I turned 18. Is there a problem with being a capitalist? You wouldn't be posting your message on slashdot without us.
While many here still believe in even distribution, paying for what something is worth, the tone is growing away from that.
That's right, socialism is dying at slashdot. Thank god.
So are you honestly suggesting that the salaried employees that bring in millions of dollars with their inventions or solve particularly difficult problems should be paid the same as those who aren't profitable at all or stick to the routine?
No, he is suggesting that if you have a contract, you honor it. And if you don't like the terms of the contract for hire, you leave.
Why should an employer be faced to pay someone more money than what their contract calls for?
The fact is, they shouldn't, and they won't be. This lawsuit would have failed in the US, and rightly so.
This lawsuit was won... in Japan.
The rest of your post is trying to apply what happened in this case with Capitalism in general, and it fails.
I thought that in capitalism, we reward those with harder jobs who perform well because otherwise "no one would do them."
Then you don't understand capitalism. Honestly, does the guy who cleans the shit out of toilets make or deserve more money than someone who doesn't? Well, in your warped view of Capitalism, they should, right? Who wants to clean turds up?
However, that job requires no formal education, no planning, and really, no thinking.
Capitalism rewards those that put forth ingenuity, time, hard work, skill, and/or luck.
Why is it that culturally, we reward people who run companies
We don't. They run the companies. If the companies they run sucked badly enough, they'd lose employees and profits and they'd cease to be a company, and the CEO would not make a penny.
Does it bother you that your time and effort, no matter how productive or brilliant, is worth shit unless you're an executive?
So what your saying is, some entity, maybe the government, should decide what everyone gets paid, based on how "worthy" of the money you think they are?
To you my fellow youngings: stick to the university life......
Aww fuck, now I get it.
The improved technology does nothing for improving a childs ability to learn.
Seeing as how this product has not even been released yet, I find this statement patently absurd.
Or did you mean to imply that no technology is helpful in teaching students. That the book, invented thousands of years ago, is the highest mountain we can hope to reach in teaching aids?
Sheesh. Let me introduce some sense here where it is sorely needed: Any tool like this can help or hinder a student depending on how it is allowed to be used.
Giving a kid a book or this pen will do nothing without a teacher or parent helping them with it, in most cases.
Find the employees that do it, and fire them. Don't go after a kid that discovers where you leak...
Dear StevenHenderson:
What the fuck do you think we're doing? We're trying to find out from Nick DePlume who is breaking our NDA contracts.
Sincerely,
Apple
What ever happened to kids playing with teddy bears, or learning from reading books?
Nothing. This still happens. However, believe it or not, with improved technology comes possibilities for improved learning. Maybe with the right tools, kids can learn to read and write and calculate at earlier ages, when their brains are more pliable.
Then again, you probably think Kids shouldn't have pre-school, and they should just get shoved into a government run public school when they turn 5 or 6, and "that will learn them."
Just guessing.
If only they had 45 years to make good on their claims!
oh wait
well, it's an industry that pays millons to the main actors and director.
Yes, it is a free market.
If the first thing to give after a little piracy is the painter's pay, then I do feel really sorry for the guy.. they should get a union or something..
What if someone told you, I'm sorry you're getting paid less (or fired) because I am busy taking your company's product for free instead of paying for it, but HEY, why don't you join a union or something?
Yeah.
It almost makes you whish they'd just put the actors to whine in front of the camera.. "I used to make millions, and now thanks to those evil pirates, I get paid less than the painter.. the fucking PAINTER!!"
The actors make the most money because they get people (outside of the freeloaders on the net) to fork over the money. Without those A-list actors, the movies don't do as well, and everyone gets less money.
However, you will RARELY find a movie that is spending most of its budget on the cast...
Most people understand that P2P will increase record sales and concert attendance manyfold.
While I agree that P2P will increase concert attendence, I have seen no evidence that it increases (or decreases) record sales.
However, an album is something that people usually listen to many times.
What about movies? They cost more to produce than albums. The making of them employs more people than the making of albums. People typically only watch a movie one time.
I don't see any beneficial effect of piracy on movies. People download them from the internet for free instead of renting/buying a DVD, or in the case of many new leaks, instead of buying a ticket to watch it in the theatre.
If there is no end to this trend, hollywood will have to produce less movies. While many will say, good, that will weed out the crap, it will also mean many good movies may not get made.
I do find it amusing how many people try to justify the act of taking something for free, against the creator's wishes, and really, against what most of us know is just wrong.
What makes you think the only artists who made a living are the ones whose works are still around today ?
Because most of the famous artists I can name were paid to produce their works. How about you?
Depriving them of what, exactly ? They all got paid while they were working (and the movie industry is hardly going broke).
Take some lessons in economics. If the movie industry sees a slowdown in ticket sales or DVD sales, they'll produce less movies, they'll hire less crew to work on those movies, they'll pay less cities and businesses for the right to use their facilities to shoot the movies. One thing leads to another, the movies aren't made in a vacuum.
Profits (income, salary, wage) for the common people are independent of piracy.
Prove it. Nothing you posted proves anything.
The only profits that will be hurt are those for the CEOs and execs
Says you. It all has an effect on the little guy. If the company isn't making enough money, they'll hire fewer people or offer lower wages. If the market dries up due to piracy, they'll make fewer movies.
I can't feel sorry for anyone who has more than 6 months rent in the bank
So according to your morals, it's ok to steal from someone if they are successful in business?
If they don't want to take the chance in business they're free to quit selling the CDs to pirates. How they figure it out is not my problem. Once they legally sell a CD to a pirate it's not my problem. They know exactly what a pirate will do with a CD. It's not my problem to figure out how they choose their customers. If they can't do it right they shouldn't be in business.
Then I am assuming you are not outraged when they punish pirates caught selling CDs? That's the only point I'm pursuing. Time in jail, no way, but I support restitution, absolutely.
*nudge* North is that way. *pointing*
I'll not take directions from someone who thinks it's ever ok to steal, thanks.
Where is the fault in the logic? I'd love to hear it. I'm sorry I have a moral compass.
I don't want to be a big, wet blanket here, and I don't want to say nothing has been accomplished; it was a necessary first step. But it ain't space travel. Orbital insertions are two orders of magnitude harder.
Exactly. Let me summarize, people.
Step 1. Take a Virgin into space.
Step 2. Orbital insertion.
Step 3. PROFIT!!!
It's not that they vaporize, it's that
1. Some people don't know about the problem.
2. Some people know about the problems but don't care enough about them to outweigh the benefit of the game (to them).
3. Some people know about the problems, care enough about it, but are too few in numbers to make a difference.
In other words, market forces.
There's nothing wrong with borrowing a movie from the public library. It's the same as renting it, because the library paid a special price to be allowed to rent it out to people "for free." And they have a limited number of copies of each movie, so it's not like you're at "the free blockbuster." That's how they get away with it.
But I hope you can recognize the difference between borrowing a finite object from a place that has paid for a license to be able to offer that object to you, and downloading a movie permanently from a freeloader.
I'd argue that most do, either at their art, or at something else which allows them to execute their art in their "spare time".
Ever heard of the term "starving artist"? It's pretty popular. And I'll tell you flat out that most artists do NOT make money, and if they are doing their art in their spare time, they are not able to take their art seriously.
Modern IP laws and modern recording contracts exist largely to benefit the record companies and a VERY FEW "artists". I know many musicians, including my daughter, who make a living as musicians without having heard of the RIAA or ever having published a composition or recording. For comparison, I know zero musicians who have recording contracts with an RIAA-member company. I doubt I'm unique in this.
So what? What is your point, that because you don't know that many, that therefore it's ok to infringe their copyrights and not pay them any money for their work and the way they have chosen to sell their work?
I happen to know a few artists that are signed to RIAA labels, and some that aren't.
I think the RIAA and its tactics suck, I think they are short-sighted and will ultimately fatally shoot themselves in the foot, but until they are down the drain, I don't think it's right to decide to let thousands of people download thousands of songs and movies for free, just because it's technically possible.
No, actually I'm neither.
Sampling music is one thing. I have no problem with it if you go out and buy the album later. But downloading a movie illegally and watching it rather than renting it, watching it via cable, or buying the DVD, is absolutely stealing that content and ultimately it hurts all the people that work on the movies. It's not just A-list stars, but all those thousands of people you see listed in the end credits.
C'mon, let's get serious.
Mankind got by for countless milennia before this whole concept of "paying for music" started. Need I remind you that all over the world, there are these people called "musicians" who generally like to play on these things called "instruments" and produce noise called "music."
And how much quality work is available to us from these older times, where the work wasn't paid for by an audience, a king, or a benefactor? Not much. Even Mozart's brilliance was bottled for money. Most artists need to make a living to survive.
Download that movie for free, and directly or indirectly, you are depriving the hundreds and thousands of crew members and artists that worked to create it and future movies. It's just a fact.
Music isn't the issue. What is at issue is the insane idea that you can own music, and that your grandchildren can live off of performances that were recorded before they were even born, long after you are dead.
If that's the issue, then work to change copyright laws. However, you don't have the right to infringe copyrights now, and most of the people on slashdot that do it are not infringing these old works you mention, but the latest coming out of hollywood and the media giants.
I'm so sick of this, "Great, just what we need, people [using a new invention], while driving!" whine.
Some people are just BAD DRIVERS. They don't need a new invention to make suck, they just do. Whether it be bad judgement or poor hand-to-eye coordination. If some moron was going to watch TV on his phone while driving, trust me, he or she (ok, she), was going to do something equally stupid while driving.
That is why you must learn the art of defensive driving, which can be boiled down to the idea that, "everyone else around you is a fucking idiot."
underware
Do something with your life.......Contribute to society somehow!.......Make a difference....... .....post to Slashdot, something!!
right?
I believe you don't understand the IE is embedded into the operating system, and Firefox is not.
There are security advantages to the latter.
They could license their implementation of Fairplay to other portable MP3 player manufacturers like iRiver and Creative.
But the reason they built iTunes was to sell iPods.
To get the best experience you need iTunes, an iPod, and a Mac.
No, to get the best experience you need iTunes and an iPod. No Mac needed. I have Windows, it works exactly the same as my brother's pod+tunes on Mac.
You have to jump through hoops, degrading the audio quality of the music in the process to use the music you've purchased through iTunes on anything else.
That's right. And it's not a secret. Apple: iTunes + iPod. They didn't pitch you on iTunes and tell you it works with anything else but iPod.
They are anti-competitive by design.
Hmmm, I really fail to see the anti-competitive aspect. Apple is competing against other software/hardware makers. They built an esteemed digital music player that people drool over. They built a great digital music store that people love. You can buy the iPod and listen to MP3s on it. You can use iTunes to manage your MP3s or buy music to listen to on your computer. The killer combo is iTunes + iPod.
Just because they don't open both of those up for the whole world to resell doesn't mean their being anti-competitive. They are selling two products, and people are buying them.
Where is the abuse of anti-trust laws?
quality monitor erases basically all of your points
I disagree, but I'll move on to some more points for you to consider:
1. How much energy is your CRT using? A 22" CRT is gobbling up a ton of energy.
2. How much heat is your CRT putting out? You can probably heat a small room with a 22" CRT.
3. How heavy is your CRT? How many people does it take to carry your 22" CRT across the room? How long before your desk crumbles beneath it?
Yes I am exaggerating, but just barely.
Better image quality leads to less squinting and less eyestrain and/or headaches.
That's not true at all if you're dealing with text all day. I would say images and videos look better on a CRT, but text is absolutely crisp on an LCD, and it is nigh impossible to get the same level of sharpness on CRTs.