I love articles like this, they help me build up my friend/foe database
Perhaps, but to what purpose? Many make the mistake of reading the words 'Friend' or 'Foe' and accepting that as a definition. But it really is just a system for flagging up message you'd want to see... Now, do you want all those people you disagree with going unchallenged?
My friends list contains a couple of real arseholes.
from an interview with Laurie Anderson: The category of art expands, and doesn't mean anything any more. We've become so clever, so sensitive, that we don't need works of art to represent beauty to remind us how to look and how to feel. Some days, everything is tuned really well, and everything you see is sharp, and it's like living in a work of art. And that's what I'm going for, to sharpen my senses to the point where I don't need to make more stuff. I don't know what communication will have to do with it, when we're all so exquisitely tuned. It does make you realizse what a fiction style is, when you start asking yourself: "Why do I think this work of art is finished, or good? Or even art?"
I thought I'd lead with this quote, as I read it this morning and it seemed pertinent to our discussion. I like what and how she said it, and from what I understand from your posts to be your point of view, I think you would. But implicit in what she has said is the point I'm trying to make - that Art must communicate with the observer / participant. I suppose that you might read the quote differently, and I don't wish to re-read someone else's words in my own voice however... UNLIKE A CERTAIN/. POSTER. *ahem* For example:
You were suggesting that only works that convey specific meaning (emotional response) were art. You also stated that skill was in some way relevant.
Ah, no - I hope not! If you inferred that then I have been misread. I think you have in your mind the idea that I'm ignorant of modern art or think that only Renaisance painters were artists. And although I like the consoling remark from one modern artist to a traditional painter: "You're art looks like the thing it's supposed to," (spot the reference please), I'm not so narrow minded. In my previous posts, I didn't say a specific emotional meaning. Anything that conveys an emotional or perceptual insight to the observer / particpant can be Art. Your second statement, that I said skill was relevant - well relevant, yes. It's hard to imagine Jimi Hendrix being successful without being a good guitarist, no matter how finely tuned his musical sensitivity. The sensitivity / perception is not enough, to be an artist, one must be able to share your perception with another. However, I think you are talking only about traditional technical skills such as painting something that looks like the something you're painting. Re-read my quote about Dahli and Picasso. By what you have said my criteria are, I would rate Dahli's melting clock higher than Picasso's 1907 Self-Portrait. In fact, the former leaves me cold, wheras Picasso's portrait is freaky and disturbing - which of these on your wall would unsettle you most? That's the one I would call Art. So although I think the deployment of technical skill is usually important in Art, it is not critical in the way that you are straw-manning my viewpoint.
If you rephrased this as "...art I like must convey meaning..." I could not argue with you. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, art is not.
I have offered a definition that includes this subjectivity - if the work reaches you then it is Art for you. But your definition is socially based - what should society consider art - and you argue from this assumption which is buried so deeply in your every statement that I don't think you are aware of it. This is why I believe we are talking at cross-purposes. We are arguing different things. I don't give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks is art, but I care quite a lot if other people accept someone else's criteria for art over their own, if they value something that doesn't convey anything to them. My definition of art frees someone from this, whereas yours is the inverse.
Again, you are annexing words like illustration and offering up art school definitions which I don't accept. To tell me what my words mean is to trap me, you must understand what I mean by them. Not doing this, is to shift this from an interesting
FWIW, I've got an anonymous stalker, who posts idiotic little replies to lots of my posts in threads, but who cares? This is all just a joyride anyway.
Yep! I got my first stalker about a month ago - someone who jumped at me in a new story for stomping him (deservedly) in an old story. Happily, I just stomped him again. In a way, it's a ready made idiot to argue my case against. Trouble is, it might make me intellectually lazy. Hope you can see the points that I was making, anyway.
btw, "Money is the measure of people's transactional values." Yoink!;)
You are confusing art with illustration, its a very common mistake.
And you're not listening to what the other person has said, which is an even more common one.;)
Seriously though, I offered up a definition of Art that you have just said, "no it's not, use the word illustration instead." I'm afraid I'm sticking with Art.
I believe that Art must convey meaning and I'd very much disagree with your statement that most artists don't have a clue what their art means. Your statement has an in-built assumption (your own) of what Art is - i.e. anyone who paints is an artist and therefore if someone paints and doesn't convey meaning then Art need not convey meaning. I would say that the painter that conveys nothing to the viewer is not an artist, merely a technician.
Just to belabour my point, I'll use the example that you did - pre-modern era relgious painting. I've used the word painting rather than Art as you did because it is the definition of this word that we are debating, and I don't wish to argue my case from preconceptions.
Some of this, as you say, exists merely to convey factual information to the viewer and on this basis, I do not call it Art, it is, to use your own term, illustration. However, you mistake the intention of the painter if you think that it was merely to convey this information. In many cases, the intent is to inspire the viewer with the emotion of the scene. The creation on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is not so much for illustrative purposes (God made the world like this) but to take away the worshipper's breath with the whole idea of the Creation. At this point, if the work is good at achieving this, then it becomes Art.
I think we may be talking at slight cross-purposes however as I almost entirely agree with your last paragraph. There is a financial lock-down on the art world, intended to hyper-inflate the price of modern art. And this does rely on convincing people that their statement of what is or is not art is more valid than the viewer's own. I take a very slightly different slant on this however and say that it is not only the increased ease with which this can be done for the unfamiliar (and you have found a VERY good way of putting it); but is also that it exludes many very gifted 'traditional' artitsts who would otherwise compete with those they have groomed.
And that is more or less my reply. I only wish to add background in that I'm not against "modern" art. Some of it I like very much. But a lot I think is crap because it stirs nothing in the observer / participant. For every Picasso (who could paint exceedingly well technically if he chose), there is a Salvador Dahli.
However much silly money gets passed around for people's beds / tents or spattered t-shirts, I think it is probably dwarfed by the trade in local artists and traditional works that ordinary (sane) people buy.
Money never comes out of nowhere (unless you're the central bank). In this case the money "skimmed" would come from introducing inefficienvy into the system by interposing himself in the information flow for the sake of his advertisers.
But really, I was just illustrating the case for the prosecution as you seemed to see NO reason why people were irritated by him.
I'm just discussing it from first principles more than talking about this man specifically. You'll notice that from my original post. Having read the article linked too, I think (at least in this instance) your argument carries more merit. But I notice that I have been modded up +3 Insightful for mine and you recieved +3 Offtopic for discussing the same thing. That is the/. bias manifesting itself again and THAT, I definitely disagree with.
I think what constitutes Art is something that conveys emotions or a new perception to the observer / listener / participant.
A lot of "modern" art may mean something profound to the creator (they claim) but it singularly fails to convey anything to the observer - at least not without reading a two page explanation of the work, at which point an intellectual understanding of the meaning may be grasped, but nothing that really stirs the emotions or the mind.
Of course, my definition could conceivably rule out some very good traditional artists who are technically good, but emotionally boring. That's okay with me, although I recognize the skill.
I feel this is particularly true with a lot of modern photography, but that just may be my particular axe.
As far as this PC house - I don't consider it Art. What did the artist intend to make me feel or think? I can't tell. There might be people out there who are stirred by this, but it's more likely due to some deeply personal reasons than skill on the artist's part. Say, maybe their parents were crushed in a freak avalanche of badly stacked 486 base units or something...
I don't know much about this situation, but if he's not really doing anything other than swiping bits of other people's articles and/. is linking to him instead of these for his benefit, then it is (a) to the detriment of those people who originally produced or published the story and (b) the original information is presumably distorted or diluted slightly in the process - unless he were copying everything.
The counter-argument would be that he is adding insightful or helpful additional information, but from what I gather, this is not the case. And if there is a financial tie between the editors and this guy, then that could concievably lower the quality of/. in terms of the stories shown. It could not concievably raise it. Financial ties are always dubious.
If this guy is simply copying other stories and pasting them on his website, then there seems nothing wrong with/. users scoring a few informative points by doing the same here - there are people on dial-up out there, you know. An alternative, would be to post a direct link to the original article, wherever that is.
In short, people get annoyed by those who skim money off other people's work without contributing anything.
As a non-gay single person I'm also "denied access" to such services. Is it time for me to march on Washington in drag, demanding what's mine?
Well, so are a lot of single gay people denied "what's theirs." But as a straight person, you have the potential to get your share of the pie. So really it's about equal opportunities.
You can go down the route of specific taxes for specific purposes, but it gets messy and also leaves the needy (such as those raising children) worse off.
There may be a well-reasoned, logical argment supporting the view that the state has a compelling interest to grant special legal benefits to people who are in one class of binding long-term relationships while denying those benefits to all other classes of long-term binding relationships, but I have yet to hear one.
Children. The only argument against gay marriage that I've heard that deserves even momentary consideration is this one. Social and financial assistance to those who are bringing up the next generation which is in the interests of our whole species.
It falls down on (a) the possibility of adoption, (b) the possibility of children from previous relationships or getting pregnant from outside the relationship (artificial or would-you-do-me-a-favour means) and (c) would exclude childless hetero-couples from marriage.
So not a good argument, but one not based on religious or cultural discrimination.
So I'm inclined to reject your entire point. The debate of these other issues does not stifle discussion of the things you happen to wish people were fretting about more.
Although the GP does imply that these other issues are irrelevant, which you are right, they are not, the point I think was that they do deflect attention away from issues such as political corruption, erosion of rights and economic sleight-of-hand.
When you can whip the people up into a frenzy over deeply personal issues and make these the issues on which the electorate make decisions, then you can get away with anything else you like. There is no reason why for example, the abortion debate has to follow party lines. It's a matter of personal belief and the politicians should vote accordingly.
Instead what you have is a situation in which two parties have very similar policies for anything that affects the health of the nation, but draw up their divisions on more "moral" issues that are picked to be very divisive. There are forces between both parties that are very happy with this - choice on the issues that they couldn't care less about, none on the things that matter to them.
the people who are going to care are those that read Groklaw or TuxRocks; the pro-SCO people are going to go to a pro-SCO place, and are probably not going to read anti-SCO writings.
Of course when these two groups meet, the former will have an advantage in making the latter look like arses because they can point this out to ignorant SCO fans.
But on a related note, how many SCO fans are there? FOSS is a community. SCO is a business that has investors./.'ers are more susceptible to anti-SCO propaganda than investors are to pro-SCO literature that is, after all, put out by SCO. I'd say a lot of investors must have wised up by now.
The problem is that the music companies are generally seen by the populous as representing the artists and trying to nurture the artists/protect them from evil.
You're kidding me? Most of the people I know (a good cross-section covering a pretty wide range of the educational spectrum), don't regard music labels as anything but money hungry companies.
Now that we have online purchasing and downloading, bands need precisely one thing from a record label - exposure. And with the record labels current reputation, people are increasingly suspicious of their hype.
The thing that the record labels get is radio airtime and magazine exposure. But I'm increasingly listening to music streams on my computer rather than traditional radio. Especially as I can record the streams to listen to later. The labels have no control over this and it's exposing me to a lot of bands that I wouldn't have heard of otherwise.
Incidentally, this is how I discovered the Dresden Dolls. These two have taken a real chance in publishing some great (good-quality) music and videos free to download on their site. It works - I downloaded, then bought the CD and am now buying another for a friend. Hell - I might even be going for the T-shirt.
Very similar to someone who provides a cable decoder, you mean?
Well assuming that it was a cable decoder that still required you to pay for your stations just like the companies one, then yes. The difference is that I can connect his cable decoder to my Linux TV. So I'll finally be able to start buying songs from them again.
I really don't see any obvious way in which the childporn on Freenet can result in more child abuse.
Well the first argument would be that exposing people to the child porn might encourage them to become paedophiles. I think that's false in the same way that gay pornograpgy doesn't make straight people gay, but it's an argument.
The main issue with the child pornography is that it so abhorrent that most people natural instinct is to do everything they can to stamp it out. You've taken an extremely rational approach to it that ignores this disgust, though you make a good case.
However, consider that these children are harmed not just in the making of the porn but in its distribution. I really don't know what we're talkig about with this stuff, if it's pictures of children being abused or if it's just nude children, but if it's the latter then the kid might be far more traumatised just by growing up knowing that people were using her picture. And imagine being the parent of that kid and knowing that guys around the world were using that photo.
As I say, you may have a valid point as far as Freenet is concerned that I'd have to consider further, but there definitely are arguments against it.
How is that a restriction? Re-encoding is always a bad idea if you care about sound quality.
Please re-read my earlier post. Focusing on this is like ignoring an elephant in your bedroom and saying "Hey look, there aren't any mice." It's very far from the central issues.
I would expect there probably aren't many people still reading this story so if it's just you and I carrying on the debate for the sake of our interest, then ignoring my points and picking on what I said at the time was a tangential issue wont achieve anything - it just turns it into a sad competition for the last word; the logical conclusion of which will be
"You're wrong."
"No, you're wrong."
"No, you are wrong!"
"..."
"I win!"
But just for the sake of debate and to show you that there are indeed mice in your bedroom, and they're everywhere:
1. Re-encoding from an original CD is considerably less lossy than re-encoding from an iTunes burned one.
2. Without the DRM there is no need to re-encode. It is already yours to do with as you please.
3. Why are you now saying "Re-encoding is bad anyway so it's not a restriction" when three posts earlier you were said "If your friend wants a nice, space-efficient AAC file on their iPod,they can re-encode it."
I consider this minor issue to be resolved now, so please return to my unaddressed points about the potential danger of DRM.
If they're smart, they will fight pretty hard, to stop the RIAA from suing them for neglegence.
If you're smart, tell me how you're going to do DRM encryption server side without (a) grinding the whole service to a halt and (b) doing so remotely in such a way that it can't be unencrypted.
The first requirement in suing someone for negligance is being able to say what they should have done.
I think we are talking about DRM in general, in which case those restrictions do exist.
But in the limited case of iTUnes in its current state, then those restrictions exist in potential but are not currently enforced. However, as you agree that the restrictions would be a bad thing, then I think you would agree that it is better to have a state where there is no restriction than a state where there are restrictions but a third party says: "We wont use them, honest."
Apple could very easily change how they deploy this DRM and the OP is right to be wary.
A related point is that burning and re-encoding introduces further degradation so it isn't really possible to give the music away or sell it as you can with a CD. At least not without tarnishing it.
If you hate DRM, then why do you support it by giving companies that use it your money?
People are entirely free to do something grudgingly. Why let someone else set the agenda and decide that the only choice is between 'A' and 'B'. If someone is capable of imagining 'C' then they can and should complain until they get it. You have called this hypocrisy, but the poster has merely picked the lesser of the evils available whilst continuing to push for his ideal.
What if thousands upon thousands of people did this with 50 songs each? Wouldn't that destroy the business model?
£0.79 x 50 songs * 20,000 people (thousands upon thousands) = £790,000.
No, I don't think the addition of £800k (approx. $1.5million) would hurt Apple or the labels that cream off the profit.
It takes ONE person to upload a song to the Internet and this can be done from many sources other than iTunes. The fact that thousands of other people are buying non-DRM versions doesn't affect its availability on the Internet. It doesn't undermine Apple. It just shows that people are willing to pay for the music that they want.
And if this leads to a sales jump for Apple, (and I'll be helping now I can connect from my Linux system), then that's the best result we can get.
It's not "giving away" music when you share files on P2P because you retain a copy of the song as well, you didn't give it to someone else and relinquish your copy.
This is true, but it isn't what the original poster was saying. He said he can't give away or lend DRM 'd music. He can with CDs. The point remains that he is restricted by DRM. I would also say that what he has restricted from had been a good thing and he is thus deprived.
Slashdot Mirror
I love articles like this, they help me build up my friend/foe database
Perhaps, but to what purpose? Many make the mistake of reading the words 'Friend' or 'Foe' and accepting that as a definition. But it really is just a system for flagging up message you'd want to see... Now, do you want all those people you disagree with going unchallenged?
My friends list contains a couple of real arseholes.
from an interview with Laurie Anderson:
/. POSTER. *ahem* For example:
The category of art expands, and doesn't mean anything any more. We've become so clever, so sensitive, that we don't need works of art to represent beauty to remind us how to look and how to feel. Some days, everything is tuned really well, and everything you see is sharp, and it's like living in a work of art. And that's what I'm going for, to sharpen my senses to the point where I don't need to make more stuff. I don't know what communication will have to do with it, when we're all so exquisitely tuned. It does make you realizse what a fiction style is, when you start asking yourself: "Why do I think this work of art is finished, or good? Or even art?"
I thought I'd lead with this quote, as I read it this morning and it seemed pertinent to our discussion. I like what and how she said it, and from what I understand from your posts to be your point of view, I think you would. But implicit in what she has said is the point I'm trying to make - that Art must communicate with the observer / participant. I suppose that you might read the quote differently, and I don't wish to re-read someone else's words in my own voice however... UNLIKE A CERTAIN
You were suggesting that only works that convey specific meaning (emotional response) were art. You also stated that skill was in some way relevant.
Ah, no - I hope not! If you inferred that then I have been misread. I think you have in your mind the idea that I'm ignorant of modern art or think that only Renaisance painters were artists. And although I like the consoling remark from one modern artist to a traditional painter: "You're art looks like the thing it's supposed to," (spot the reference please), I'm not so narrow minded. In my previous posts, I didn't say a specific emotional meaning. Anything that conveys an emotional or perceptual insight to the observer / particpant can be Art. Your second statement, that I said skill was relevant - well relevant, yes. It's hard to imagine Jimi Hendrix being successful without being a good guitarist, no matter how finely tuned his musical sensitivity. The sensitivity / perception is not enough, to be an artist, one must be able to share your perception with another. However, I think you are talking only about traditional technical skills such as painting something that looks like the something you're painting. Re-read my quote about Dahli and Picasso. By what you have said my criteria are, I would rate Dahli's melting clock higher than Picasso's 1907 Self-Portrait. In fact, the former leaves me cold, wheras Picasso's portrait is freaky and disturbing - which of these on your wall would unsettle you most? That's the one I would call Art. So although I think the deployment of technical skill is usually important in Art, it is not critical in the way that you are straw-manning my viewpoint.
If you rephrased this as "...art I like must convey meaning..." I could not argue with you. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, art is not.
I have offered a definition that includes this subjectivity - if the work reaches you then it is Art for you. But your definition is socially based - what should society consider art - and you argue from this assumption which is buried so deeply in your every statement that I don't think you are aware of it. This is why I believe we are talking at cross-purposes. We are arguing different things. I don't give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks is art, but I care quite a lot if other people accept someone else's criteria for art over their own, if they value something that doesn't convey anything to them. My definition of art frees someone from this, whereas yours is the inverse.
Again, you are annexing words like illustration and offering up art school definitions which I don't accept. To tell me what my words mean is to trap me, you must understand what I mean by them. Not doing this, is to shift this from an interesting
MOD PARENT: +5 Metaphysical.
FWIW, I've got an anonymous stalker, who posts idiotic little replies to lots of my posts in threads, but who cares? This is all just a joyride anyway.
Yep! I got my first stalker about a month ago - someone who jumped at me in a new story for stomping him (deservedly) in an old story. Happily, I just stomped him again. In a way, it's a ready made idiot to argue my case against. Trouble is, it might make me intellectually lazy. Hope you can see the points that I was making, anyway.
btw, "Money is the measure of people's transactional values." Yoink!
Only Americans would be naive enough to leave their country without one.
I've seen some Americans travel all over Europe and could swear they never left their country once.
You are confusing art with illustration, its a very common mistake.
And you're not listening to what the other person has said, which is an even more common one.
Seriously though, I offered up a definition of Art that you have just said, "no it's not, use the word illustration instead." I'm afraid I'm sticking with Art.
I believe that Art must convey meaning and I'd very much disagree with your statement that most artists don't have a clue what their art means. Your statement has an in-built assumption (your own) of what Art is - i.e. anyone who paints is an artist and therefore if someone paints and doesn't convey meaning then Art need not convey meaning. I would say that the painter that conveys nothing to the viewer is not an artist, merely a technician.
Just to belabour my point, I'll use the example that you did - pre-modern era relgious painting. I've used the word painting rather than Art as you did because it is the definition of this word that we are debating, and I don't wish to argue my case from preconceptions.
Some of this, as you say, exists merely to convey factual information to the viewer and on this basis, I do not call it Art, it is, to use your own term, illustration. However, you mistake the intention of the painter if you think that it was merely to convey this information. In many cases, the intent is to inspire the viewer with the emotion of the scene. The creation on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is not so much for illustrative purposes (God made the world like this) but to take away the worshipper's breath with the whole idea of the Creation. At this point, if the work is good at achieving this, then it becomes Art.
I think we may be talking at slight cross-purposes however as I almost entirely agree with your last paragraph. There is a financial lock-down on the art world, intended to hyper-inflate the price of modern art. And this does rely on convincing people that their statement of what is or is not art is more valid than the viewer's own. I take a very slightly different slant on this however and say that it is not only the increased ease with which this can be done for the unfamiliar (and you have found a VERY good way of putting it); but is also that it exludes many very gifted 'traditional' artitsts who would otherwise compete with those they have groomed.
And that is more or less my reply. I only wish to add background in that I'm not against "modern" art. Some of it I like very much. But a lot I think is crap because it stirs nothing in the observer / participant. For every Picasso (who could paint exceedingly well technically if he chose), there is a Salvador Dahli.
However much silly money gets passed around for people's beds / tents or spattered t-shirts, I think it is probably dwarfed by the trade in local artists and traditional works that ordinary (sane) people buy.
Money never comes out of nowhere (unless you're the central bank). In this case the money "skimmed" would come from introducing inefficienvy into the system by interposing himself in the information flow for the sake of his advertisers.
But really, I was just illustrating the case for the prosecution as you seemed to see NO reason why people were irritated by him.
I'm just discussing it from first principles more than talking about this man specifically. You'll notice that from my original post. Having read the article linked too, I think (at least in this instance) your argument carries more merit. But I notice that I have been modded up +3 Insightful for mine and you recieved +3 Offtopic for discussing the same thing. That is the
I think what constitutes Art is something that conveys emotions or a new perception to the observer / listener / participant.
A lot of "modern" art may mean something profound to the creator (they claim) but it singularly fails to convey anything to the observer - at least not without reading a two page explanation of the work, at which point an intellectual understanding of the meaning may be grasped, but nothing that really stirs the emotions or the mind.
Of course, my definition could conceivably rule out some very good traditional artists who are technically good, but emotionally boring. That's okay with me, although I recognize the skill.
I feel this is particularly true with a lot of modern photography, but that just may be my particular axe.
As far as this PC house - I don't consider it Art. What did the artist intend to make me feel or think? I can't tell. There might be people out there who are stirred by this, but it's more likely due to some deeply personal reasons than skill on the artist's part. Say, maybe their parents were crushed in a freak avalanche of badly stacked 486 base units or something...
I don't know much about this situation, but if he's not really doing anything other than swiping bits of other people's articles and
The counter-argument would be that he is adding insightful or helpful additional information, but from what I gather, this is not the case. And if there is a financial tie between the editors and this guy, then that could concievably lower the quality of
If this guy is simply copying other stories and pasting them on his website, then there seems nothing wrong with
In short, people get annoyed by those who skim money off other people's work without contributing anything.
DOH! Ignore that! I was being dense!
It looks quite nice, and cheap enough that it could supplement New Scientist, rather than forcing me to choose.
But the subscriptions page has three options - US, Canada and International.
And what does the International page contain? Options for US and Canada! Wtf?
As a non-gay single person I'm also "denied access" to such services. Is it time for me to march on Washington in drag, demanding what's mine?
Well, so are a lot of single gay people denied "what's theirs." But as a straight person, you have the potential to get your share of the pie. So really it's about equal opportunities.
You can go down the route of specific taxes for specific purposes, but it gets messy and also leaves the needy (such as those raising children) worse off.
There may be a well-reasoned, logical argment supporting the view that the state has a compelling interest to grant special legal benefits to people who are in one class of binding long-term relationships while denying those benefits to all other classes of long-term binding relationships, but I have yet to hear one.
Children. The only argument against gay marriage that I've heard that deserves even momentary consideration is this one. Social and financial assistance to those who are bringing up the next generation which is in the interests of our whole species.
It falls down on (a) the possibility of adoption, (b) the possibility of children from previous relationships or getting pregnant from outside the relationship (artificial or would-you-do-me-a-favour means) and (c) would exclude childless hetero-couples from marriage.
So not a good argument, but one not based on religious or cultural discrimination.
So I'm inclined to reject your entire point. The debate of these other issues does not stifle discussion of the things you happen to wish people were fretting about more.
Although the GP does imply that these other issues are irrelevant, which you are right, they are not, the point I think was that they do deflect attention away from issues such as political corruption, erosion of rights and economic sleight-of-hand.
When you can whip the people up into a frenzy over deeply personal issues and make these the issues on which the electorate make decisions, then you can get away with anything else you like. There is no reason why for example, the abortion debate has to follow party lines. It's a matter of personal belief and the politicians should vote accordingly.
Instead what you have is a situation in which two parties have very similar policies for anything that affects the health of the nation, but draw up their divisions on more "moral" issues that are picked to be very divisive. There are forces between both parties that are very happy with this - choice on the issues that they couldn't care less about, none on the things that matter to them.
It is naive to think that this isn't deliberate.
the people who are going to care are those that read Groklaw or TuxRocks; the pro-SCO people are going to go to a pro-SCO place, and are probably not going to read anti-SCO writings.
/.'ers are more susceptible to anti-SCO propaganda than investors are to pro-SCO literature that is, after all, put out by SCO. I'd say a lot of investors must have wised up by now.
Of course when these two groups meet, the former will have an advantage in making the latter look like arses because they can point this out to ignorant SCO fans.
But on a related note, how many SCO fans are there? FOSS is a community. SCO is a business that has investors.
The problem is that the music companies are generally seen by the populous as representing the artists and trying to nurture the artists/protect them from evil.
You're kidding me? Most of the people I know (a good cross-section covering a pretty wide range of the educational spectrum), don't regard music labels as anything but money hungry companies.
Now that we have online purchasing and downloading, bands need precisely one thing from a record label - exposure. And with the record labels current reputation, people are increasingly suspicious of their hype.
The thing that the record labels get is radio airtime and magazine exposure. But I'm increasingly listening to music streams on my computer rather than traditional radio. Especially as I can record the streams to listen to later. The labels have no control over this and it's exposing me to a lot of bands that I wouldn't have heard of otherwise.
Incidentally, this is how I discovered the Dresden Dolls. These two have taken a real chance in publishing some great (good-quality) music and videos free to download on their site. It works - I downloaded, then bought the CD and am now buying another for a friend. Hell - I might even be going for the T-shirt.
Very similar to someone who provides a cable decoder, you mean?
Well assuming that it was a cable decoder that still required you to pay for your stations just like the companies one, then yes. The difference is that I can connect his cable decoder to my Linux TV. So I'll finally be able to start buying songs from them again.
I really don't see any obvious way in which the childporn on Freenet can result in more child abuse.
Well the first argument would be that exposing people to the child porn might encourage them to become paedophiles. I think that's false in the same way that gay pornograpgy doesn't make straight people gay, but it's an argument.
The main issue with the child pornography is that it so abhorrent that most people natural instinct is to do everything they can to stamp it out. You've taken an extremely rational approach to it that ignores this disgust, though you make a good case.
However, consider that these children are harmed not just in the making of the porn but in its distribution. I really don't know what we're talkig about with this stuff, if it's pictures of children being abused or if it's just nude children, but if it's the latter then the kid might be far more traumatised just by growing up knowing that people were using her picture. And imagine being the parent of that kid and knowing that guys around the world were using that photo.
As I say, you may have a valid point as far as Freenet is concerned that I'd have to consider further, but there definitely are arguments against it.
How is that a restriction? Re-encoding is always a bad idea if you care about sound quality.
Please re-read my earlier post. Focusing on this is like ignoring an elephant in your bedroom and saying "Hey look, there aren't any mice." It's very far from the central issues.
I would expect there probably aren't many people still reading this story so if it's just you and I carrying on the debate for the sake of our interest, then ignoring my points and picking on what I said at the time was a tangential issue wont achieve anything - it just turns it into a sad competition for the last word; the logical conclusion of which will be
"You're wrong."
"No, you're wrong."
"No, you are wrong!"
"..."
"I win!"
But just for the sake of debate and to show you that there are indeed mice in your bedroom, and they're everywhere:
1. Re-encoding from an original CD is considerably less lossy than re-encoding from an iTunes burned one.
2. Without the DRM there is no need to re-encode. It is already yours to do with as you please.
3. Why are you now saying "Re-encoding is bad anyway so it's not a restriction" when three posts earlier you were said "If your friend wants a nice, space-efficient AAC file on their iPod,they can re-encode it."
I consider this minor issue to be resolved now, so please return to my unaddressed points about the potential danger of DRM.
Sure there is. Just don't re-encode it.
Which brings us back to DRM restricting us.
And the point from my post that you've chosen to reply to was a minor aside. The rest of it still stands, also.
If they're smart, they will fight pretty hard, to stop the RIAA from suing them for neglegence.
If you're smart, tell me how you're going to do DRM encryption server side without (a) grinding the whole service to a halt and (b) doing so remotely in such a way that it can't be unencrypted.
The first requirement in suing someone for negligance is being able to say what they should have done.
I think we are talking about DRM in general, in which case those restrictions do exist.
But in the limited case of iTUnes in its current state, then those restrictions exist in potential but are not currently enforced. However, as you agree that the restrictions would be a bad thing, then I think you would agree that it is better to have a state where there is no restriction than a state where there are restrictions but a third party says: "We wont use them, honest."
Apple could very easily change how they deploy this DRM and the OP is right to be wary.
A related point is that burning and re-encoding introduces further degradation so it isn't really possible to give the music away or sell it as you can with a CD. At least not without tarnishing it.
If you hate DRM, then why do you support it by giving companies that use it your money?
People are entirely free to do something grudgingly. Why let someone else set the agenda and decide that the only choice is between 'A' and 'B'. If someone is capable of imagining 'C' then they can and should complain until they get it. You have called this hypocrisy, but the poster has merely picked the lesser of the evils available whilst continuing to push for his ideal.
What if thousands upon thousands of people did this with 50 songs each? Wouldn't that destroy the business model?
£0.79 x 50 songs * 20,000 people (thousands upon thousands) = £790,000.
No, I don't think the addition of £800k (approx. $1.5million) would hurt Apple or the labels that cream off the profit.
It takes ONE person to upload a song to the Internet and this can be done from many sources other than iTunes. The fact that thousands of other people are buying non-DRM versions doesn't affect its availability on the Internet. It doesn't undermine Apple. It just shows that people are willing to pay for the music that they want.
And if this leads to a sales jump for Apple, (and I'll be helping now I can connect from my Linux system), then that's the best result we can get.
It's not "giving away" music when you share files on P2P because you retain a copy of the song as well, you didn't give it to someone else and relinquish your copy.
This is true, but it isn't what the original poster was saying. He said he can't give away or lend DRM 'd music. He can with CDs. The point remains that he is restricted by DRM. I would also say that what he has restricted from had been a good thing and he is thus deprived.