I can't argue with that. It worked for Microsoft, Adobe, etc. It works for the ??AA. It's easy to understand how when you get the propaganda out of the way. Capitalism on such a grand scale cannot work without piracy.
In your model, how does someone who only produces their work in the studio environment and does not ever "perform" (or whose material cannot be performed because, say, one musician played all 20 tracks) make a living?
Man, there are tons of musicians making good money who never seen the outside of the studio. They write music. It gets used. They get paid. What's the problem? If they want to get paid again, they simply have to write more music. It is wrong to do it once and get paid forever.
No, you have to find a better way to convince writers that your insane idea of them only earning an income when they "perform" their work is somehow rational.
Sorry, they're just another bunch being "victimized" by technology. It happans to lots of folks. It happened to me. I adapted. I can continue my work...in a different fashion. Welcome to the club.
Some of them are hardworking animators, writers, journalists, symphony conductors, and the vast majority of them have a far more decent, civilized, rational and pleasant demeanor than either you or the stereotypes you're holding up as "artists."
And they all get paid for their work...while they perform it. When they stop, there is no need to continue paying them. A good artist will always have work as long as he wants to under normal circumstances. And he will get paid well.
Why would we default towards a position of presumed ownership?
We don't default towards a position of presumed ownership. It is brought about by draconian law written by thieves who ignore it themselves when it's convenient.
If I open a store renting out widgets by the hour, and my business model is that I charge for that, you cannot alter my business model (by using my services without paying) without facing the consequences. You sure as hell don't have to even visit my store... but if you want the service I'm providing...
I can open my own store renting widgets. I can sell them. Again, you have it wrong. I'm not telling anyone to work without compensation. I'm only removing an artificial control used to create artificial shortages. All work is built on another. You can't claim ownership. You have no right to exclusivity.
Of course, you're off the hook there, because with your sterling ethics, you'd never want the entertainment produced by an artist that embraces the concept of owning their work.
The only natural claim they have is that of attribution. It's his resume to show to somebody that he/she can perform when asked, whether in the studio or live on stage, and get paid for the performance. The more he performs, the more he gets paid. No more of this make one hit and collect the rent for the rest of your life. It seems to me that the artists are being a bunch of crybabies who want special treatment everywhere they go. They get all pissed off if they don't get priority service at the restaurant. They sure don't belive in obeying traffic laws. And they want special privileges for being the court jester. Well, lucky you. The public swallowed it. You're getting what you want. The public is throwing billions at your feet. Well, I say it's a crock. Besides, what you're defending is not the artist. It's the industry. That industry is now obsolete. Just like so many others that go belly up when a new kid shows up with something different. This desperate clinging to obsolesence is what holds back progress, just like IP law itself, which whas created to protect obsolete business models since the 1700's, and of course silence govt and corporate critics. This goes for booksellers and movie makers as well. They just have to find a better way. Just like I do when my job is replaced by a machine.
We're operating under a framework of copyright law.
Well, I'll go back to the statement(from another poster) that prompted me to reply the first time....but people have got to accept that it's not right... He meant it the other way around, but it applies this way also. Creating artificial scarcity is not right, no matter how you do it.
That's like saying you respect me, but just not enough to keep you from stiffing me on the agreed payment after I've mowed your lawn.
Wrong. Your statement involves the agreed payment. I made so such agreement with the artist. I'm saying that if he wants my money, he has to perform. I'm under no obligation to support a person's desired business model. That would be the equivilent of him putting a gun to head and telling me I must buy his product just so he doesn't have to work at Burger King.
And what about a fine art printmaker who produces, by hand, 250 prints? Are those ads?
No. Those are the originals. They are worth whatever he can get for them. Photocopies of that product would be the ad to encourage me to buy an original. Just like the music thing. I want the original in the form of a live performance. That is what I'll pay for.
Out of curiosity, how does your "performance" concept work when it comes to a film that costs millions of dollars to produce?
If someone wants to make a million dollar movie, then he'll have to pool his money with associates. His motivation means nothing. He'll just have to be motivated by wanting to see a million dollar movie when it's finished.
I'm not against paying artists for their work, as some would like to insist. I'm just saying for my money I expect a performance, just like I have to perform my line of work to get paid myself. I don't expect special privileges like the content producers do.
This is the same arguement the spammers and telemarketers have used.
Used for what? If you're talking about fax and celphone spammers, I'm not claiming any rights that lay the cost onto anybody else. I just saying broadcast content can only be fairly regulated by the local authorities. If the locals like my message, then the feds should butt out. Anybody not within range of my transmitter should have absolutely no say on what is being transmitted. They only have a right to prevent harmful interference to their transmissions. What we have now is a power grab, just like so many others. Content is a local matter, and should be treated as such.
The amendment does not say "Congress shall make no unreasonable law..." nor does it spell out an "appropriate setting". The 4th amendment does use the word unreasonable, so it's not like they weren't aware of the concept. If you want those things in place, then you must codify it.
They shut down the very few that are BROADCAST channels/stations.
Again, content is none of the feds' business. The ONLY thing the FCC should be concerned about is competent operation of the transmitter. Content should be an issue ONLY to those who live within range. Putting the federal govt in charge is like a guy in South Carolina telling us what can be shown in Montana. It is a local issue. And besides that, you still have to tune in.
And our legislature/courts/executive branch agree that public airwaves are not the right location...
So they all decide that violating the law is easier than re-writing it. We're always being told that if we don't like the law, then we should change it. That same rule applies here. But then authoritarianism is a pretty easy sell these days.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. emphasis mine
Hmmm...I don't see anything about "vulgar" or Howard. Is there something about "no law" that you don't understand? If they want to make exceptions, then there is a process for producing further amendments. Until then, the one we have should stand as it is. The supreme court blew it.
If there aren't enough boobs or sex talk for you, change the channel.
Pretty hard to do if the govt shuts them all down.
Hmmm, just how many millions do you have in you war chest to convince people to vote on a law that they could care less about?
...but people have got to accept that it's not right...
According to who? Garp? It is just as valid to say that the concept of IP is not right. That it robs the public. That it only encourages hoarding and speculation. Once you divulge an idea, you can't take it back for yourself exclusively. I consider that to be stealing. Just because the law says otherwise, doesn't mean that the law is right. The legality of copyright is one thing. The morality of it is another issue entirely.
...but don't respect them enough to pay what the artist is asking for that work.
Most people DO respect them enough to pay for the performance of that work. The copies are ads. They should pay us to distribute them. Just like I pay a radio or TV station to broadcast or newspaper to print my ad. Your concept implies that I should pay AOL for their CDs. The CD is an advertising medium, not an entertainment one. That the ads might be entertaining doesn't change a thing. There are still ads.
This controversial technology would require that disc players maintain permanent connections to content providers via the Internet...
At our expense...of course. This will do wonders for those on dial up. In addition to being made as dumb as TV, the internet will become the world's biggest dongle, which will be required to operate any electronic device. It will become our new electronic tracking collar, like they use for those under house arrest. If you like premade entertainment, you'd better stock up now and learn how to keep all your old equipment in good repair.
That's stepping a little too far over the bounds of protecting *your* content.
They have been doing that since 1710.
If you destroy *my* hardware you have invaded my private space which is unacceptable.
Your society will claim "self-defense", and most people will go along. The thugs will smash you printing press and burn your books to maintain their power, and you will like it.
Considering all the cross ownership invloved, there is very little to distinguish a Japanese car from an American one. Most big industries no longer need to recognize national borders. There are no American made cars. The parts come from everywhere. And the vehicle is assembled in Mexico or Canada along with the US. It has become quite silly to argue the advantages of one over the other. Who makes the Nova now? The Dodge Stealth and Mitsubishi GT-300 are identical, no? Everybody makes the occasional lemon. And every once in a while, Ford comes out with a winner.
That might have something to do with my status as a non-criminal, though.
Somebody is proposing a law to change that as we speak. It is important to take away your non-criminal status, so that nobody will complain when your freedoms are taken away.
A brief look back in history would reveal that these types of people and their tactics are quite common. In just recent history, members of the ruling elite in such countries as Soviet Russia, North Vietnam, and pre-WWII Germany routinely whipped up their people into jingoist fervor by overstating threats and, oftentimes, outright lying. It's not rocket science--it's politics.
Maybe you didn't see when this was posted from demachina (71715):
This brand of propaganda isn't new or anything, most war time and oppressive governments indulge in it, its just enlightening to see it happening in a supposedly "Free and Democratic" country that doesn't "do such things". emphasis mine.
I'm sure they'd be interested in a person at a correctional facility who poses as a law enforcement officer and attempts to defraud people using prison phone facilities.
New rules mandating($200 Mr. Bush) that all transmissions over TCP/IP(the now mandated internet protocol) be made in plain text. Any indecypherable info will be traced back to the source and the sender will be...umm...detained. In other news, the post office has now prohibited the use of envelopes, and all letters are to be written in English only. Any spelling and grammitical errors are subject to further investigation and may result in detention.
3) Japan was starving it's people and urging them to prepare for "millions of honorable deaths"
Sounds almost familiar to today's "enemy". Much to my dismay, the US may have to do a repeat if they want to end their present conflict. It's clear that conventional warfare will not work. I'm against it, but I'll understand. Ok, that's the emotional American me. The logical me sees that this present war is good for business and the profiteers will do whatever they can to perpetuate it. This time, there is no moral high ground. There might not have been any back then either, but any evidence that could possibly prove it is still classified. Lots of atrocities on the other side then, but how much aid for those atrocities came from us? How many targets remained untouchable to protect somebody's commercial interests? Like in Vietnam? How many war criminals did we protect and scurry off to Argentina during and after? To suffer at the hands of another human is an atrocity. No matter who does it and why.
for more contraband. "Hey, buddy. Wanna buy a modem? Guaranteed secure. Only a thousand bucks. Buy two for eighteen hundred." This will turn our economy into a pure black market(I wish). Everything will be illegal. A pirate's paradise this will be. The hardware hackers have their work cut out for them. I hope they can handle it. Our new machines will be giant breadboards and wire wrap. All electronic engineers will be required to register. There will be a three day waiting period to buy soldering irons while they do a background check. God! what a bunch of freaks! And I'm not talking about the good kind...that hung out at the original Woodstock. You poor pitiful souls. Why do want to turn the earth into a prison planet? Never mind. I already know.
Yes they are...They're worse than bad. They're so low, they have to look up to see down:-) Ok, I admit, they still have the best calculator in town. Does anybody know how high it can count? I think it's kinda funny that, with all the delays in its release and thinking we could forget about it until then so that we could focus on getting the public to check out Linux, and make the necessary improvements(which I'm sure is being done), Slashdot is dutifully keeping it on the front page almost every day for the last year and a half(or more?). Would this be what you'd call "hype"? or merely advertising? It's not a complaint. REALLY! Just a thing, that's all.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell is she supposed to do? Punt?
No, Mr. Bond, she's supposed to die.
He wouldn't be the first.
For example, if someone rapes one person, that is very different than if someone rapes 10 people.
Why?
I can't argue with that. It worked for Microsoft, Adobe, etc. It works for the ??AA. It's easy to understand how when you get the propaganda out of the way. Capitalism on such a grand scale cannot work without piracy.
In your model, how does someone who only produces their work in the studio environment and does not ever "perform" (or whose material cannot be performed because, say, one musician played all 20 tracks) make a living?
Man, there are tons of musicians making good money who never seen the outside of the studio. They write music. It gets used. They get paid. What's the problem? If they want to get paid again, they simply have to write more music. It is wrong to do it once and get paid forever.
No, you have to find a better way to convince writers that your insane idea of them only earning an income when they "perform" their work is somehow rational.
Sorry, they're just another bunch being "victimized" by technology. It happans to lots of folks. It happened to me. I adapted. I can continue my work...in a different fashion. Welcome to the club.
Some of them are hardworking animators, writers, journalists, symphony conductors, and the vast majority of them have a far more decent, civilized, rational and pleasant demeanor than either you or the stereotypes you're holding up as "artists."
And they all get paid for their work...while they perform it. When they stop, there is no need to continue paying them. A good artist will always have work as long as he wants to under normal circumstances. And he will get paid well.
Why would we default towards a position of presumed ownership?
...but people have got to accept that it's not right... He meant it the other way around, but it applies this way also. Creating artificial scarcity is not right, no matter how you do it.
We don't default towards a position of presumed ownership. It is brought about by draconian law written by thieves who ignore it themselves when it's convenient.
If I open a store renting out widgets by the hour, and my business model is that I charge for that, you cannot alter my business model (by using my services without paying) without facing the consequences. You sure as hell don't have to even visit my store... but if you want the service I'm providing...
I can open my own store renting widgets. I can sell them. Again, you have it wrong. I'm not telling anyone to work without compensation. I'm only removing an artificial control used to create artificial shortages. All work is built on another. You can't claim ownership. You have no right to exclusivity.
Of course, you're off the hook there, because with your sterling ethics, you'd never want the entertainment produced by an artist that embraces the concept of owning their work.
The only natural claim they have is that of attribution. It's his resume to show to somebody that he/she can perform when asked, whether in the studio or live on stage, and get paid for the performance. The more he performs, the more he gets paid. No more of this make one hit and collect the rent for the rest of your life. It seems to me that the artists are being a bunch of crybabies who want special treatment everywhere they go. They get all pissed off if they don't get priority service at the restaurant. They sure don't belive in obeying traffic laws. And they want special privileges for being the court jester. Well, lucky you. The public swallowed it. You're getting what you want. The public is throwing billions at your feet. Well, I say it's a crock. Besides, what you're defending is not the artist. It's the industry. That industry is now obsolete. Just like so many others that go belly up when a new kid shows up with something different. This desperate clinging to obsolesence is what holds back progress, just like IP law itself, which whas created to protect obsolete business models since the 1700's, and of course silence govt and corporate critics. This goes for booksellers and movie makers as well. They just have to find a better way. Just like I do when my job is replaced by a machine.
We're operating under a framework of copyright law.
Well, I'll go back to the statement(from another poster) that prompted me to reply the first time.
That's like saying you respect me, but just not enough to keep you from stiffing me on the agreed payment after I've mowed your lawn.
Wrong. Your statement involves the agreed payment. I made so such agreement with the artist. I'm saying that if he wants my money, he has to perform. I'm under no obligation to support a person's desired business model. That would be the equivilent of him putting a gun to head and telling me I must buy his product just so he doesn't have to work at Burger King.
And what about a fine art printmaker who produces, by hand, 250 prints? Are those ads?
No. Those are the originals. They are worth whatever he can get for them. Photocopies of that product would be the ad to encourage me to buy an original. Just like the music thing. I want the original in the form of a live performance. That is what I'll pay for.
Out of curiosity, how does your "performance" concept work when it comes to a film that costs millions of dollars to produce?
If someone wants to make a million dollar movie, then he'll have to pool his money with associates. His motivation means nothing. He'll just have to be motivated by wanting to see a million dollar movie when it's finished.
I'm not against paying artists for their work, as some would like to insist. I'm just saying for my money I expect a performance, just like I have to perform my line of work to get paid myself. I don't expect special privileges like the content producers do.
This is the same arguement the spammers and telemarketers have used.
Used for what? If you're talking about fax and celphone spammers, I'm not claiming any rights that lay the cost onto anybody else. I just saying broadcast content can only be fairly regulated by the local authorities. If the locals like my message, then the feds should butt out. Anybody not within range of my transmitter should have absolutely no say on what is being transmitted. They only have a right to prevent harmful interference to their transmissions. What we have now is a power grab, just like so many others. Content is a local matter, and should be treated as such.
The amendment does not say "Congress shall make no unreasonable law..." nor does it spell out an "appropriate setting". The 4th amendment does use the word unreasonable, so it's not like they weren't aware of the concept. If you want those things in place, then you must codify it.
They shut down the very few that are BROADCAST channels/stations.
Again, content is none of the feds' business. The ONLY thing the FCC should be concerned about is competent operation of the transmitter. Content should be an issue ONLY to those who live within range. Putting the federal govt in charge is like a guy in South Carolina telling us what can be shown in Montana. It is a local issue. And besides that, you still have to tune in.
And our legislature/courts/executive branch agree that public airwaves are not the right location...
So they all decide that violating the law is easier than re-writing it. We're always being told that if we don't like the law, then we should change it. That same rule applies here. But then authoritarianism is a pretty easy sell these days.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. emphasis mine
Hmmm...I don't see anything about "vulgar" or Howard. Is there something about "no law" that you don't understand? If they want to make exceptions, then there is a process for producing further amendments. Until then, the one we have should stand as it is. The supreme court blew it.
If there aren't enough boobs or sex talk for you, change the channel.
Pretty hard to do if the govt shuts them all down.
Get the laws changed
...but people have got to accept that it's not right...
Hmmm, just how many millions do you have in you war chest to convince people to vote on a law that they could care less about?
According to who? Garp? It is just as valid to say that the concept of IP is not right. That it robs the public. That it only encourages hoarding and speculation. Once you divulge an idea, you can't take it back for yourself exclusively. I consider that to be stealing. Just because the law says otherwise, doesn't mean that the law is right. The legality of copyright is one thing. The morality of it is another issue entirely.
...but don't respect them enough to pay what the artist is asking for that work.
Most people DO respect them enough to pay for the performance of that work. The copies are ads. They should pay us to distribute them. Just like I pay a radio or TV station to broadcast or newspaper to print my ad. Your concept implies that I should pay AOL for their CDs. The CD is an advertising medium, not an entertainment one. That the ads might be entertaining doesn't change a thing. There are still ads.
Maybe your funny meter is broke. Just sayin' That's all.
Who's gonna win?
1)Vista
2)GPL v3
3)SCO
This controversial technology would require that disc players maintain permanent connections to content providers via the Internet...
At our expense...of course. This will do wonders for those on dial up. In addition to being made as dumb as TV, the internet will become the world's biggest dongle, which will be required to operate any electronic device. It will become our new electronic tracking collar, like they use for those under house arrest. If you like premade entertainment, you'd better stock up now and learn how to keep all your old equipment in good repair.
That's stepping a little too far over the bounds of protecting *your* content.
They have been doing that since 1710.
If you destroy *my* hardware you have invaded my private space which is unacceptable.
Your society will claim "self-defense", and most people will go along. The thugs will smash you printing press and burn your books to maintain their power, and you will like it.
Considering all the cross ownership invloved, there is very little to distinguish a Japanese car from an American one. Most big industries no longer need to recognize national borders. There are no American made cars. The parts come from everywhere. And the vehicle is assembled in Mexico or Canada along with the US. It has become quite silly to argue the advantages of one over the other. Who makes the Nova now? The Dodge Stealth and Mitsubishi GT-300 are identical, no? Everybody makes the occasional lemon. And every once in a while, Ford comes out with a winner.
That might have something to do with my status as a non-criminal, though.
Somebody is proposing a law to change that as we speak. It is important to take away your non-criminal status, so that nobody will complain when your freedoms are taken away.
Nah, let's just "degrade" it a little, like GPS. The RIAA already has experience in that. We'll put them in charge
A brief look back in history would reveal that these types of people and their tactics are quite common. In just recent history, members of the ruling elite in such countries as Soviet Russia, North Vietnam, and pre-WWII Germany routinely whipped up their people into jingoist fervor by overstating threats and, oftentimes, outright lying. It's not rocket science--it's politics.
Maybe you didn't see when this was posted from demachina (71715):
This brand of propaganda isn't new or anything, most war time and oppressive governments indulge in it, its just enlightening to see it happening in a supposedly "Free and Democratic" country that doesn't "do such things". emphasis mine.
Yeah, I heard what they did to Martha Stewart the other day. I know. She's not in jail, but work with me, will ya?
I'm sure they'd be interested in a person at a correctional facility who poses as a law enforcement officer and attempts to defraud people using prison phone facilities.
Wadda they gonna do? Arrest him?
New rules mandating($200 Mr. Bush) that all transmissions over TCP/IP(the now mandated internet protocol) be made in plain text. Any indecypherable info will be traced back to the source and the sender will be...umm...detained. In other news, the post office has now prohibited the use of envelopes, and all letters are to be written in English only. Any spelling and grammitical errors are subject to further investigation and may result in detention.
3) Japan was starving it's people and urging them to prepare for "millions of honorable deaths"
Sounds almost familiar to today's "enemy". Much to my dismay, the US may have to do a repeat if they want to end their present conflict. It's clear that conventional warfare will not work. I'm against it, but I'll understand. Ok, that's the emotional American me. The logical me sees that this present war is good for business and the profiteers will do whatever they can to perpetuate it. This time, there is no moral high ground. There might not have been any back then either, but any evidence that could possibly prove it is still classified. Lots of atrocities on the other side then, but how much aid for those atrocities came from us? How many targets remained untouchable to protect somebody's commercial interests? Like in Vietnam? How many war criminals did we protect and scurry off to Argentina during and after? To suffer at the hands of another human is an atrocity. No matter who does it and why.
for more contraband. "Hey, buddy. Wanna buy a modem? Guaranteed secure. Only a thousand bucks. Buy two for eighteen hundred." This will turn our economy into a pure black market(I wish). Everything will be illegal. A pirate's paradise this will be. The hardware hackers have their work cut out for them. I hope they can handle it. Our new machines will be giant breadboards and wire wrap. All electronic engineers will be required to register. There will be a three day waiting period to buy soldering irons while they do a background check. God! what a bunch of freaks! And I'm not talking about the good kind...that hung out at the original Woodstock. You poor pitiful souls. Why do want to turn the earth into a prison planet? Never mind. I already know.
Read up: MS isn't 100% bad.
:-) Ok, I admit, they still have the best calculator in town. Does anybody know how high it can count? I think it's kinda funny that, with all the delays in its release and thinking we could forget about it until then so that we could focus on getting the public to check out Linux, and make the necessary improvements(which I'm sure is being done), Slashdot is dutifully keeping it on the front page almost every day for the last year and a half(or more?). Would this be what you'd call "hype"? or merely advertising? It's not a complaint. REALLY! Just a thing, that's all.
Yes they are...They're worse than bad. They're so low, they have to look up to see down