Nowhere in your rambling did you answer the question of, why should society respect their side of the copyright agreement when the content creators do not? The idea of intellectual property is artificial...one cannot own an idea. It's obvious that content creators need some sort of protection, but the length of copyright is excessive to the extreme. If it hadn't been expanded time and time again I honestly do not believe we'd see such rampant piracy in the music and film industry. I'm a big Buddy Holly fan, the brutha is dead and he cannot benefit from his music anymore. Why is it that I'll not see his work go into the public domain in my lifetime? That is what I rally against. I am fine with copyright, so long as both sides hold up their ends. Until I see ANY work go into the public domain, I refuse to respect copyright.
"Rambling"? There's nice! Everything I said was a direct response to what you wrote and is directly related to one of your points. I defy you to point out anything in my post that isn't directly following on from something you said.
The idea of intellectual property is artificial...one cannot own an idea.
Is a big budget movie an "idea". Is a novel an "idea". Is a concert recording of the LSO an "idea". What about a modern computer game like Dragon Age that took numerous people a great deal or time, effort, planning and expense to bring to fruition. It gets pirated. So you have some people willing to pay the cost of the game, and some others who decide they'll put the burden of cost on everyone else. These are real actual circumstances. Is it an acceptable rationalisation of not recompensing those people for their work to say: "you can't own an idea".
You talk a lot about "contracts" and criticise my post for "rambling", but your own post avoids the criticisms I made to you and goes off on a tangent about copyright terms. Piracy of anything released in the last decade can hardly be based on an objection to copyright terms, and yet piracy of such recent media is by far what people are pirating. I'll repeat my critisms of your argument about social "contracts". Content producers are increasing our culture and adding value with each song or movie or novel or computer game. If someone didn't feel there was value, they wouldn't download it. Yet you demand to freely profit from their work in return for a supposed "social contract" which actually has nothing on your side of the contract when you avoid paying. In fact you increase the burden on everyone else by making them pay for you. Can you tell me which piece of content you have pirated which is something you have contributed to through your "social contract" and which you therefore feel entitled to take for free? You also apply your arguments indiscriminately. Can you tell me why Buddy Holly's works being under copyright mean anyone working to produce any sort of media in the last decade should be penalised? People who have nothing to do with Buddy Holly? Unless you are limiting your piracy to things that are very old or have increased costs because they are directly derived from things very old still under copyright, your beliefs are only a rationalisation, not a reason.
Can I at least hope that you bought the last Venture Bros DVDs rather than just downloading them? If not, then as someone who did, I can only say: 0 min 37 seconds;)
An opinion is just that, not inherently indicative of reasons for doing one thing, or another.
Someone's opinion very often is indicative of their reasons for doing something. Furthermore, I find it highly unlikely that much piracy takes place because people feel copyright terms are unjust. Most piracy is of media that is current.
Actually, business models based on people paying you for your work are the ideal right now. Business models based on people paying you for a copy of your product on the other hand is what's obsolete
I presume therefore that you have some magical means of everyone who wants to see a film or play a computer game or read a book to do so without copies being made? I await with interest to find what manner of magic allows people to pay content producers for their work in the field of computer games, novels, movies, utility software, operating systems without that means being paying for a copy. Sire you could front the money for everything and stick up a website saying: "if you liked this movie, please send me some money to say thank you". And then you can watch the world dry up of anything that takes a lot of time and effort and money to produce.
As they say, an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. Not an honest day's work for lifetime+70 years' worth of pay.
I find it highly unlikely that you're pirating things because of a protest against copyright terms. I presume you pirate nothing but old Disney Mickey Mouse cartoons, and not anything that was released in the last five years, then? And if you feel that a content producer is being paid more than their content is worth, then you should simply not buy it, rather than take it for free.
There's no moral argument in saying "this isn't worth the money, so I'll let everyone else bear the cost of me having it".
What's wrong with giving back to the public domain from which you borrow from our shared culture to create the media. I will stop downloading the day the media conglomerates start giving back. Copyright is a contract between content creators and society. They haven't lived up to their end by enriching our culture, so why should I live up to my end and honor their state-sponsored monopoly?
Ironic for someone to condemn content producers for not giving back, as an argument for taking things without paying. You obviously feel entitled to be rewarded for all the history of culture that media draws on. So when someone pirates Dragon Age, they are entitled to it free because they have already contributed culturally to what went into it? I think they didn't. When someone pirates an artist's music or performance, they are entitled because that artist's work is based on the downloader's contributions to the culture that informed the work? I don't see that. When someone pirates a movie, or a novel or a role-playing game or whatever, they are entitled to do so because they've already earned a right to it somehow? No you mean that as a member of society you should get the rewards of anything in society regardless of whether you contribute back or not. And what you mean when you say "shared culture" is that the sharing should be one direction - yours. If you felt otherwise, you would do as the rest of us do and pay for the content.
And your argument is based on the notion that no value is added, but that the content is merely taken from "culture" and sold back to it as is. Yet, if there is no value added, then why would anybody buy it? And if there is value added, then the whole argument about being entitled to it for free because it's just based on public domain falls apart. If there is value added, then by definition something has been contributed.
Your argument that you only download stuff because it doesn't enrich your culture is self-defeating. If it had no value, you would not want it.
Your statement that the contract between content producers and "society" has not been honoured, is egotistical in the extreme when you presume that you get to speak for society.
It is primarily a way to stop the traditional legal ways of using media -- moving to portable devices, time shifting, selling second hand, and making mix tapes.
I can't believe that you seriously believe content producer's main aspiration is not to stop vast amounts of people downloading media, but to prevent a comparative handful of people from playing an MP3 or whatever on a device of their choosing. Why don't you want to believe that DRM is a response to piracy? Is it because that would undermine one of the few remaining rationalisations for illegal downloading?
Many of us are sick of DRM measures. We don't solely blame the content producers for it - they are simply trying to prevent people taking their product for free which most of us respect as fair business. We blame the freeloaders who necessitate some sort of technical response from the content producers.
Maybe I was typing about how DRM exploded into multiple markets only after device-shifting became popular, and explicitly prevented device shifting (until later, although that's still in place for some types of content).
Extracting the one part of your post that isn't about Unicorns or something, I will point out that the technology for shifting content between devices and formats is largely the same technology that is used for piracy. If people didn't use that technology to get products for free instead of paying for them, then the decision of producers to use DRM or not, would be a simple question of balancing the irritation caused by it with the lost sales by people being able to shift things between devices. And we can see that the decision would be to not use DRM because nearly all of the media that I legally purchases I can shift between devices, whether that's e-books, MP3s, games, or whatever. So clearly DRM isn't being primarily used to stop me device-shifting my MP3's, etc. Therefore we can presume that it si a response to somehting else. Could that something else be piracy, by any chance? Again - it's sheer trolling to pretend that the number of theoretical people who somehow need to convert an old Vinyl to CD can compare to those downloading as a substitue for purchasing. And so there's no basis for saying that DRM is a response to people wanting to device shift rather than it being a response to piracy.
Yes, but the people smart enough to vote for a third party are maybe 1% of the total population (number pulled out of ass, but seriously, the 'smart' are ridiculously, ludicrously outnumbered by the brainless proles).
The difference between your "smart" person and your "brainless" person (using your own simplistic terms), is rarely some unarguable fact of genetics or fate, but one of education and being informed. Persuade two people to yuor way of thinking and they in turn can persuade two more. It doesn't take many interations until you're having an effect.
Untrue. Another route is to build an activist base that can take control over the primaries and push candidates that are not corporatists.
I don't see how that would break the two party-lock on US politics. I severely doubt that you could turn either the Democratic party or the Republican party into an entity which would disolve its own power base.
It is a false dichotomy - the two choices you offered as the "only" ones are not the only choices available.
Then I would expect you to point out this obvious third option that I appear to be missing. I said that the only ways to break the two party lock in US politics, is to either vote for third parties or go outside the system. Since going outside the system tends to be nasty (revolutions are seldom bloodless things), I'm advocating the method of voting for third parties. Now what's this other option that you keep saying exists?
Only if you consider it piracy to copy your CD's to your MP3 player, or using a TV to record a show to a USB stick and then moving it to your other TV to watch. Piracy limits how draconian DRM can be; eventually too many people go for the cracked unlimited content.
Any of the things you listed are trivially easy even for mildly technically competent people. DRM is no barrier to any of these things. The suggestion that the vast amounts of piracy that go on are in fact people trying to copy CDs to an MP3 player, et al. is laughable. And if in fact, this is not why people are pirating, then why pretend that DRM is a response to a trickle of people not knowing how to rip a CD, rather than the huge numbers of people downloading things as a substitute for buying them?
Paying for content affiliated with the big players means supporting this threat to our rights
No it does not. When I buy an album as a download off Amazon, which I do not infrequently, it comes unencumbered with DRM. By putting my money where my mouth is, I show that there is a market for non-DRM'd music downloads. When someone chooses to pirate an album as a substitute for buying it, they show that there is a need for DRM. I do more to combat DRM by being willing to buy the products than you do by downloading them for free.
"Luckily" this temptation will soon be gone, when everything is distributed online you cannot sell anything second hand.
Pirates are living off the backs of those of us willing to pay for movies, music, books, computer games, et al.
DRM was a response to people not buying the white album again for every new audio technology. Police raids on warehouses filled with copied CDs were a response to piracy.
So when I buy an ebook with DRM on it, or a computer game with DRM on it, or a Blu-ray disc, I shouldn't think to myself, these are measures that I've got to put up with because I'm caught in a battle between people who produce the product I've bought, and those who want to live off those of us that are willing to pay. I should actually, according to you, be thinking "darn those old timers who wanted to listen to their Beatles album on a CD rather than a Vinyl without having to pay for it."
And can I just check that's what you were referring to? That you think DRM is a response to some people who had recordings on a record not wanting to pay for a CD? The vast amount of downloading of modern produced media that is done without paying for it, is just, you know, statistical noise in comparison to these ravening hordes of Beatles fans trying to save themselves the cost of a CD?
Pure shtick.. DRM is the response to liberating technology that frees the artist of the gatekeepers' toll booth
Any artist that wishes to release their music, computer game or whatever themselves, digitally can do so. A media producer putting DRM on something isn't a response to that.
Consumer equipment is crippled in order extort the creators with exorbitantly priced "pro" gear.
Hardware manufacturers can charge different amounts for different functionality, yes.
The "piracy" thing is to get public sympathy.
You put "piracy" in quotes. Are you suggesting there aren't vast numbers of people downloading stuff instead of buying it? Because I know a lot of people who do so just within my circle of friends. It seems highly statistically unlikely that I'm living in some grossly distorted bubble of abberantly unethical people.
You'll note that education was on my list of things to foster. Not because education is incompatible with spiritual belief, but because it undermines religious dogma. I actually thought atheism was the World's fastest growing religion. Can you provide some citations, out of interest?
We may be heading for a new Dark Ages, as you say. I suspect not, personally. But in either case, what I said stands: the most human and long-term effective method of population control is education, equal rights for women and convenient, cheap birth control. Plagues burn out, wars trigger vast amounts of shagging and reproduction as soon as they're over. But a whole generation of educated, successful people begets a smaller number of offspring who, in turn, are guided by their parents to be similarly educated and successful. Whether you want to throw up your hands in the air and say: "religion means we're doomed" or roll up your sleeves and promote education and equality around the world, that's a personal decision that is orthogonal to whether or not education and equality lead to a reduced birth rate. Consistently we have seen that they do.
So, my point is this. In America it is more effective to shift the center then be a 3rd party.
But do you not agree with my point that voting for a third party that meets with your principles is an effective way to shift the centre?
The use of the Liberal Democrats in the UK is an interesting case to bring up. They got in as a result of people voting for their principles. For years they languished precisely because of people feeling obliged to vote pragmatically for the lesser of two evils (though with New Labour and the Tories, it was pretty hard to decide which was which). However, their vote crept up and up until they were in a position to decide which of the major parties they wanted to form a government with. Unfortunately, they went stark raving bonkers at that point and became junior partners to the Tory party. However, it does show that 3rd parties can achieve success once people believe they can.
There's something tragic about a logic which states, "we can't change something because we don't believe we can change it", which is what the argument for pragmatic voting basically amounts to. Sorry, I just believe we can be better than that.
"and in Germany and others, they're respectable groups"
Please don't talk about things in differnt countries you've got no clue about. These "respectable groups" are in coalition with the left party ans so called "social democrates" whoose aim is to create a new european socialism/komunism regime and who wanna do away with our culture, religion, econoy simply everything of greater value.
I meant respectable in the sense of size / power, not in the sense of what a respectable chap someone is. That said, I am unconvinced that green parties in Europe are on a mission to do away with your culture, your religion or everything of greater value.
You think you're arguing with me, but you're not.;):)
Take your proposed example of the 3 candidates, one green. Note how they have adopted green politics to try and get some of that tasty green candidate's votes and win over their main rival. Net result: more green policies. And the more popular the green candidate, the more incentive for the two candidates that are merely chasing votes have to pay some grudging service to green issues. In your example with the 20% to the green candidate, you would actually see BOTH candidates pick up quite a lot of those policies to get such a juicy block of votes.
Your error is two-fold (no offence, I see your point and it's well-reasoned, I just am offering my counter-points). Firstly, you assume that failure to meet the minimum for election is a failure. In fact, it brings its own rewards. The more people vote for their principles, the more those politicians that set votes above their principles (which you must admit is a lot of them;), shit toward your principles. The second error is ignoring the effects in repeated games. If the green candidate gets 20%, then that provides an excellent basis for trying to get 23% next time. And as people see the party become more successful over time, this becomes a feedback loop (not an isolated one - there are many factors at work here - but there is nonetheless a feedback loop apparent).
Anyway, if you want to ever change the system, it's ballot box or bombs. I sincerely hope the US gets it act together and uses the former. (At least those that haven't already had their vote taken away from them).
The only logical ways out of the trap are either break the two party lock by voting for someone else, or reject the current democratic process.
False dichotomy. You can also work within the system to any number of varying degrees, which involves being willing to compromise.
I actually think your post is indicative of a huge problem in American politics today. More and more people are advocating a rejection of democracy when they don't get their way.
I wasn't advocating the rejection of democracy, I was just being complete in my argument. I listed that you could either change the system by voting your principles or reject democracy and thus concluded that people should vote their principles before the country got to the state where revolution became a popular idea.
I also don't think it is a false dichotomy. My stated aim was that the two-party lock should be broken. I don't think that's going to happen with the cooperation of the two parties you're trying to break free of (for obvious reasons), hence my conclusion that it is necessary to vote for third parties as the only logical way of achieving that without subverting the existing democratic system.
I'm open to reason. If you see another way of establishing multi-party politics in the US other than voting for third parties or subverting the democatic system (e.g. revolution), I'm willing to hear them.
Only if he buys media from the major labels. He probably does, but he definitely does not say so explicitely.
Huh? I buy media from the major labels, but it doesn't come with DRM. My 320Kbps MP3 come down the wire and play on anything I care to play them on or can be burned to a CD no problem.
DRM was a response to piracy. It has stimulated piracy only the most modest of feedback loops. The huge majority of people who download aren't doing so because DRM is a problem to them - they do it because it's easy and they get stuff free that they'd have to pay for otherwise. If there's less piracy, there's less pressure on media producers to stick encumbering DRM on everything. They know that people don't like the in your face DRM so if they feel able to ditch it and then make more money from sales, they will. Piracy is the reason the rest of us have to put up with DRM.
It doesn't matter. The only logical ways out of the trap are either break the two party lock by voting for someone else, or reject the current democratic process. As the only legal method of rejecting the current process is to get third parties into power which is the problem you're trying to solve, that only leaves illegal means. So basically if you ever want this to change, you're facing a choice of voting your principles or revolution. Do not let it get to the point where it has to be a revolution.
If people start voting their principles, then third parties may only get 5% this year, but that makes it easier to get 6% next year. When people see it's rising, more people vote for it. Then you've got 7%, which encourages more people to vote. Then one year, you wake up and you've changed things.
If America is worth fighting for, then accept it's going to take more than one battle. If you lose a few, it doesn't matter because you're gaining ground. You have to try.
I feel the same way and would only vote D just to keep the R's away. I do NOT want D's; I want less R's.
Wow. If people think this way, then I've just thought of a way it could be exploited. All I would have to do would be to pick what I wanted to happen and have it supported by group A, and then just make sure that alternative B was horribly worse. For added refinement to stop people getting wise to it, I could divide up what I wanted to achieve between both A and B and alternate which appeared worse.
Phew. I'm glad no-one else has ever thought of that. Can you imagine what America would be like if they had...?
Slashdot Mirror
Nowhere in your rambling did you answer the question of, why should society respect their side of the copyright agreement when the content creators do not? The idea of intellectual property is artificial...one cannot own an idea. It's obvious that content creators need some sort of protection, but the length of copyright is excessive to the extreme. If it hadn't been expanded time and time again I honestly do not believe we'd see such rampant piracy in the music and film industry. I'm a big Buddy Holly fan, the brutha is dead and he cannot benefit from his music anymore. Why is it that I'll not see his work go into the public domain in my lifetime? That is what I rally against. I am fine with copyright, so long as both sides hold up their ends. Until I see ANY work go into the public domain, I refuse to respect copyright.
"Rambling"? There's nice! Everything I said was a direct response to what you wrote and is directly related to one of your points. I defy you to point out anything in my post that isn't directly following on from something you said.
The idea of intellectual property is artificial...one cannot own an idea.
Is a big budget movie an "idea". Is a novel an "idea". Is a concert recording of the LSO an "idea". What about a modern computer game like Dragon Age that took numerous people a great deal or time, effort, planning and expense to bring to fruition. It gets pirated. So you have some people willing to pay the cost of the game, and some others who decide they'll put the burden of cost on everyone else. These are real actual circumstances. Is it an acceptable rationalisation of not recompensing those people for their work to say: "you can't own an idea".
;)
You talk a lot about "contracts" and criticise my post for "rambling", but your own post avoids the criticisms I made to you and goes off on a tangent about copyright terms. Piracy of anything released in the last decade can hardly be based on an objection to copyright terms, and yet piracy of such recent media is by far what people are pirating. I'll repeat my critisms of your argument about social "contracts". Content producers are increasing our culture and adding value with each song or movie or novel or computer game. If someone didn't feel there was value, they wouldn't download it. Yet you demand to freely profit from their work in return for a supposed "social contract" which actually has nothing on your side of the contract when you avoid paying. In fact you increase the burden on everyone else by making them pay for you. Can you tell me which piece of content you have pirated which is something you have contributed to through your "social contract" and which you therefore feel entitled to take for free? You also apply your arguments indiscriminately. Can you tell me why Buddy Holly's works being under copyright mean anyone working to produce any sort of media in the last decade should be penalised? People who have nothing to do with Buddy Holly? Unless you are limiting your piracy to things that are very old or have increased costs because they are directly derived from things very old still under copyright, your beliefs are only a rationalisation, not a reason.
Can I at least hope that you bought the last Venture Bros DVDs rather than just downloading them? If not, then as someone who did, I can only say: 0 min 37 seconds
*applauds*
An opinion is just that, not inherently indicative of reasons for doing one thing, or another.
Someone's opinion very often is indicative of their reasons for doing something. Furthermore, I find it highly unlikely that much piracy takes place because people feel copyright terms are unjust. Most piracy is of media that is current.
Actually, business models based on people paying you for your work are the ideal right now. Business models based on people paying you for a copy of your product on the other hand is what's obsolete
I presume therefore that you have some magical means of everyone who wants to see a film or play a computer game or read a book to do so without copies being made? I await with interest to find what manner of magic allows people to pay content producers for their work in the field of computer games, novels, movies, utility software, operating systems without that means being paying for a copy. Sire you could front the money for everything and stick up a website saying: "if you liked this movie, please send me some money to say thank you". And then you can watch the world dry up of anything that takes a lot of time and effort and money to produce.
As they say, an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. Not an honest day's work for lifetime+70 years' worth of pay.
I find it highly unlikely that you're pirating things because of a protest against copyright terms. I presume you pirate nothing but old Disney Mickey Mouse cartoons, and not anything that was released in the last five years, then? And if you feel that a content producer is being paid more than their content is worth, then you should simply not buy it, rather than take it for free.
There's no moral argument in saying "this isn't worth the money, so I'll let everyone else bear the cost of me having it".
What's wrong with giving back to the public domain from which you borrow from our shared culture to create the media. I will stop downloading the day the media conglomerates start giving back. Copyright is a contract between content creators and society. They haven't lived up to their end by enriching our culture, so why should I live up to my end and honor their state-sponsored monopoly?
Ironic for someone to condemn content producers for not giving back, as an argument for taking things without paying. You obviously feel entitled to be rewarded for all the history of culture that media draws on. So when someone pirates Dragon Age, they are entitled to it free because they have already contributed culturally to what went into it? I think they didn't. When someone pirates an artist's music or performance, they are entitled because that artist's work is based on the downloader's contributions to the culture that informed the work? I don't see that. When someone pirates a movie, or a novel or a role-playing game or whatever, they are entitled to do so because they've already earned a right to it somehow? No you mean that as a member of society you should get the rewards of anything in society regardless of whether you contribute back or not. And what you mean when you say "shared culture" is that the sharing should be one direction - yours. If you felt otherwise, you would do as the rest of us do and pay for the content.
And your argument is based on the notion that no value is added, but that the content is merely taken from "culture" and sold back to it as is. Yet, if there is no value added, then why would anybody buy it? And if there is value added, then the whole argument about being entitled to it for free because it's just based on public domain falls apart. If there is value added, then by definition something has been contributed.
Your argument that you only download stuff because it doesn't enrich your culture is self-defeating. If it had no value, you would not want it.
Your statement that the contract between content producers and "society" has not been honoured, is egotistical in the extreme when you presume that you get to speak for society.
But, but... what's wrong with living off others? Business models based on people paying you for your work are obsolete. Someone on Slashdot said so!
Then he turns around and gives us some mindnumbingly banal song like "My Humps".
Heh. I really like that song. Don't see what's wrong with it.
It is primarily a way to stop the traditional legal ways of using media -- moving to portable devices, time shifting, selling second hand, and making mix tapes.
I can't believe that you seriously believe content producer's main aspiration is not to stop vast amounts of people downloading media, but to prevent a comparative handful of people from playing an MP3 or whatever on a device of their choosing. Why don't you want to believe that DRM is a response to piracy? Is it because that would undermine one of the few remaining rationalisations for illegal downloading?
Many of us are sick of DRM measures. We don't solely blame the content producers for it - they are simply trying to prevent people taking their product for free which most of us respect as fair business. We blame the freeloaders who necessitate some sort of technical response from the content producers.
Maybe I was typing about how DRM exploded into multiple markets only after device-shifting became popular, and explicitly prevented device shifting (until later, although that's still in place for some types of content).
Extracting the one part of your post that isn't about Unicorns or something, I will point out that the technology for shifting content between devices and formats is largely the same technology that is used for piracy. If people didn't use that technology to get products for free instead of paying for them, then the decision of producers to use DRM or not, would be a simple question of balancing the irritation caused by it with the lost sales by people being able to shift things between devices. And we can see that the decision would be to not use DRM because nearly all of the media that I legally purchases I can shift between devices, whether that's e-books, MP3s, games, or whatever. So clearly DRM isn't being primarily used to stop me device-shifting my MP3's, etc. Therefore we can presume that it si a response to somehting else. Could that something else be piracy, by any chance? Again - it's sheer trolling to pretend that the number of theoretical people who somehow need to convert an old Vinyl to CD can compare to those downloading as a substitue for purchasing. And so there's no basis for saying that DRM is a response to people wanting to device shift rather than it being a response to piracy.
Yes, but the people smart enough to vote for a third party are maybe 1% of the total population (number pulled out of ass, but seriously, the 'smart' are ridiculously, ludicrously outnumbered by the brainless proles).
The difference between your "smart" person and your "brainless" person (using your own simplistic terms), is rarely some unarguable fact of genetics or fate, but one of education and being informed. Persuade two people to yuor way of thinking and they in turn can persuade two more. It doesn't take many interations until you're having an effect.
Untrue. Another route is to build an activist base that can take control over the primaries and push candidates that are not corporatists.
I don't see how that would break the two party-lock on US politics. I severely doubt that you could turn either the Democratic party or the Republican party into an entity which would disolve its own power base.
Somebody mod this AC up, please. Put it way better than I would have done.
It is a false dichotomy - the two choices you offered as the "only" ones are not the only choices available.
Then I would expect you to point out this obvious third option that I appear to be missing. I said that the only ways to break the two party lock in US politics, is to either vote for third parties or go outside the system. Since going outside the system tends to be nasty (revolutions are seldom bloodless things), I'm advocating the method of voting for third parties. Now what's this other option that you keep saying exists?
Only if you consider it piracy to copy your CD's to your MP3 player, or using a TV to record a show to a USB stick and then moving it to your other TV to watch. Piracy limits how draconian DRM can be; eventually too many people go for the cracked unlimited content.
Any of the things you listed are trivially easy even for mildly technically competent people. DRM is no barrier to any of these things. The suggestion that the vast amounts of piracy that go on are in fact people trying to copy CDs to an MP3 player, et al. is laughable. And if in fact, this is not why people are pirating, then why pretend that DRM is a response to a trickle of people not knowing how to rip a CD, rather than the huge numbers of people downloading things as a substitute for buying them?
Paying for content affiliated with the big players means supporting this threat to our rights
No it does not. When I buy an album as a download off Amazon, which I do not infrequently, it comes unencumbered with DRM. By putting my money where my mouth is, I show that there is a market for non-DRM'd music downloads. When someone chooses to pirate an album as a substitute for buying it, they show that there is a need for DRM. I do more to combat DRM by being willing to buy the products than you do by downloading them for free.
"Luckily" this temptation will soon be gone, when everything is distributed online you cannot sell anything second hand.
Pirates are living off the backs of those of us willing to pay for movies, music, books, computer games, et al.
DRM was a response to people not buying the white album again for every new audio technology. Police raids on warehouses filled with copied CDs were a response to piracy.
So when I buy an ebook with DRM on it, or a computer game with DRM on it, or a Blu-ray disc, I shouldn't think to myself, these are measures that I've got to put up with because I'm caught in a battle between people who produce the product I've bought, and those who want to live off those of us that are willing to pay. I should actually, according to you, be thinking "darn those old timers who wanted to listen to their Beatles album on a CD rather than a Vinyl without having to pay for it."
And can I just check that's what you were referring to? That you think DRM is a response to some people who had recordings on a record not wanting to pay for a CD? The vast amount of downloading of modern produced media that is done without paying for it, is just, you know, statistical noise in comparison to these ravening hordes of Beatles fans trying to save themselves the cost of a CD?
Pure shtick.. DRM is the response to liberating technology that frees the artist of the gatekeepers' toll booth
Any artist that wishes to release their music, computer game or whatever themselves, digitally can do so. A media producer putting DRM on something isn't a response to that.
Consumer equipment is crippled in order extort the creators with exorbitantly priced "pro" gear.
Hardware manufacturers can charge different amounts for different functionality, yes.
The "piracy" thing is to get public sympathy.
You put "piracy" in quotes. Are you suggesting there aren't vast numbers of people downloading stuff instead of buying it? Because I know a lot of people who do so just within my circle of friends. It seems highly statistically unlikely that I'm living in some grossly distorted bubble of abberantly unethical people.
There's a small problem with that: religion.
You'll note that education was on my list of things to foster. Not because education is incompatible with spiritual belief, but because it undermines religious dogma. I actually thought atheism was the World's fastest growing religion. Can you provide some citations, out of interest?
We may be heading for a new Dark Ages, as you say. I suspect not, personally. But in either case, what I said stands: the most human and long-term effective method of population control is education, equal rights for women and convenient, cheap birth control. Plagues burn out, wars trigger vast amounts of shagging and reproduction as soon as they're over. But a whole generation of educated, successful people begets a smaller number of offspring who, in turn, are guided by their parents to be similarly educated and successful. Whether you want to throw up your hands in the air and say: "religion means we're doomed" or roll up your sleeves and promote education and equality around the world, that's a personal decision that is orthogonal to whether or not education and equality lead to a reduced birth rate. Consistently we have seen that they do.
So, my point is this. In America it is more effective to shift the center then be a 3rd party.
But do you not agree with my point that voting for a third party that meets with your principles is an effective way to shift the centre?
The use of the Liberal Democrats in the UK is an interesting case to bring up. They got in as a result of people voting for their principles. For years they languished precisely because of people feeling obliged to vote pragmatically for the lesser of two evils (though with New Labour and the Tories, it was pretty hard to decide which was which). However, their vote crept up and up until they were in a position to decide which of the major parties they wanted to form a government with. Unfortunately, they went stark raving bonkers at that point and became junior partners to the Tory party. However, it does show that 3rd parties can achieve success once people believe they can.
There's something tragic about a logic which states, "we can't change something because we don't believe we can change it", which is what the argument for pragmatic voting basically amounts to. Sorry, I just believe we can be better than that.
"and in Germany and others, they're respectable groups"
Please don't talk about things in differnt countries you've got no clue about. These "respectable groups" are in coalition with the left party ans so called "social democrates" whoose aim is to create a new european socialism/komunism regime and who wanna do away with our culture, religion, econoy simply everything of greater value.
I meant respectable in the sense of size / power, not in the sense of what a respectable chap someone is. That said, I am unconvinced that green parties in Europe are on a mission to do away with your culture, your religion or everything of greater value.
Sorry - I meant to say "politicians shift toward your principles", not "politicians shit toward your principles".
:)
Although...
You think you're arguing with me, but you're not. ;) :)
;), shit toward your principles. The second error is ignoring the effects in repeated games. If the green candidate gets 20%, then that provides an excellent basis for trying to get 23% next time. And as people see the party become more successful over time, this becomes a feedback loop (not an isolated one - there are many factors at work here - but there is nonetheless a feedback loop apparent).
Take your proposed example of the 3 candidates, one green. Note how they have adopted green politics to try and get some of that tasty green candidate's votes and win over their main rival. Net result: more green policies. And the more popular the green candidate, the more incentive for the two candidates that are merely chasing votes have to pay some grudging service to green issues. In your example with the 20% to the green candidate, you would actually see BOTH candidates pick up quite a lot of those policies to get such a juicy block of votes.
Your error is two-fold (no offence, I see your point and it's well-reasoned, I just am offering my counter-points). Firstly, you assume that failure to meet the minimum for election is a failure. In fact, it brings its own rewards. The more people vote for their principles, the more those politicians that set votes above their principles (which you must admit is a lot of them
Anyway, if you want to ever change the system, it's ballot box or bombs. I sincerely hope the US gets it act together and uses the former. (At least those that haven't already had their vote taken away from them).
The only logical ways out of the trap are either break the two party lock by voting for someone else, or reject the current democratic process.
False dichotomy. You can also work within the system to any number of varying degrees, which involves being willing to compromise.
I actually think your post is indicative of a huge problem in American politics today. More and more people are advocating a rejection of democracy when they don't get their way.
I wasn't advocating the rejection of democracy, I was just being complete in my argument. I listed that you could either change the system by voting your principles or reject democracy and thus concluded that people should vote their principles before the country got to the state where revolution became a popular idea.
I also don't think it is a false dichotomy. My stated aim was that the two-party lock should be broken. I don't think that's going to happen with the cooperation of the two parties you're trying to break free of (for obvious reasons), hence my conclusion that it is necessary to vote for third parties as the only logical way of achieving that without subverting the existing democratic system.
I'm open to reason. If you see another way of establishing multi-party politics in the US other than voting for third parties or subverting the democatic system (e.g. revolution), I'm willing to hear them.
Only if he buys media from the major labels. He probably does, but he definitely does not say so explicitely.
Huh? I buy media from the major labels, but it doesn't come with DRM. My 320Kbps MP3 come down the wire and play on anything I care to play them on or can be burned to a CD no problem.
DRM was a response to piracy. It has stimulated piracy only the most modest of feedback loops. The huge majority of people who download aren't doing so because DRM is a problem to them - they do it because it's easy and they get stuff free that they'd have to pay for otherwise. If there's less piracy, there's less pressure on media producers to stick encumbering DRM on everything. They know that people don't like the in your face DRM so if they feel able to ditch it and then make more money from sales, they will. Piracy is the reason the rest of us have to put up with DRM.
It doesn't matter. The only logical ways out of the trap are either break the two party lock by voting for someone else, or reject the current democratic process. As the only legal method of rejecting the current process is to get third parties into power which is the problem you're trying to solve, that only leaves illegal means. So basically if you ever want this to change, you're facing a choice of voting your principles or revolution. Do not let it get to the point where it has to be a revolution.
If people start voting their principles, then third parties may only get 5% this year, but that makes it easier to get 6% next year. When people see it's rising, more people vote for it. Then you've got 7%, which encourages more people to vote. Then one year, you wake up and you've changed things.
If America is worth fighting for, then accept it's going to take more than one battle. If you lose a few, it doesn't matter because you're gaining ground. You have to try.
I feel the same way and would only vote D just to keep the R's away. I do NOT want D's; I want less R's.
Wow. If people think this way, then I've just thought of a way it could be exploited. All I would have to do would be to pick what I wanted to happen and have it supported by group A, and then just make sure that alternative B was horribly worse. For added refinement to stop people getting wise to it, I could divide up what I wanted to achieve between both A and B and alternate which appeared worse.
Phew. I'm glad no-one else has ever thought of that. Can you imagine what America would be like if they had...?