I know everyone hates the media companies, but do you not think that there might be a very good reason why artists sign up with them rather than publishing/giving away everything directly?
It's not like anyone forces an artist to sign a recording contract.
Anyone that brings "artists" into this discussion is bringing a record company-sponsored fallacy into the argument.
Bullshit. I get sick and tired of slashdot zealots who think that anyone who disagrees with them is a fucking paid shill.
I couldn't care less about record companies or artists owning private jets and stately homes. All I know is that artists need to get money from somewhere, and a lot of us aren't particularly interested in going to live concerts now that we're over 18. I don't see why the people paying to see the artist live should subsidise me by letting me pay nothing to listen to the music at home.
But yeah, obviously I must work for the RIAA to think that, because everyone either believes exactly the same things you do or they're wrong.
Nonsense like this is the inevitable result when trying to apply realworld paradigms to data (falsely referred to as 'digital goods').
If I pay to download a song from iTunes or wherever, in what way is it false to call that a purchase of digital goods? I get to legally listen to the song, the same as if I had bought it on a CD. The physical CD was never what I was buying anyway.
Unless you were actually looking over someone's shoulder, and it wasn't obviously an iPhone, how would you know that their phone wasn't a Windows phone?
I think it's totally immoral to charge anyone 'poor' (where you define that line isn't something I'll debate about right now) any more than the cost of production, while the cost of R&D can be charged to those who can actually afford it.
If all drug research and production was state-owned everyone would pay towards it through their taxes, so that the poor would rightly pay less than the rich, assuming tax was progressive and enforced properly.
The idea of intellectual property is that you no longer have to bother doing a good job, you just have to own the right to something imaginary and you can make people pay for it.
The drugs are not "imaginary". And anyway, under capitalism, how can you stop the drug companies making profits off them?
I personally don't see why anyone should be allowed to make any profit at all from things like life-saving drugs. Their research and development should be publicly funded and the results freely available.
But that would be socialism, so I don't suppose many of the US readers here would be too keen on the idea. Obviously the free market will work out best, just as long as we get rid of pesky patents, "safety" testing and so on.
The simple and obvious answer is to nationalise the drugs companies, just as water, electricity, internet supply, banks, farms and other similar activities should be nationalised. Companies should not be allowed to make profits out of basic human necessities.
Capitalism is only good for iPhones or other unnecessary luxuries, since I don't give a toss if Apple can persuade people to spend five hundred quid on a piece of electronic jewellery
Only a complete fool, April or otherwise, would base anything on imaginary property. There is nothing intellectual about that.
All property is imaginary. Anything external to you can only be described as belonging to you because of the cultural and legal framework that defines property. Property is a matter of convention, not fact.
So intellectual property is no more or less foolish than any other kind of property.
I know some very religious people who are highly intelligent, caring, charitable and extremely honest people that I have tremendous respect for, I still think their beliefs are stupid though - but I don't think THEY are stupid, I just think nobody is smart enough not to be wrong some of the time.
"And love th' offender, yet detest th' offence" (Pope - no, Alexander, not the Vatican guy).
Yes, but (at least in civilised countries) Muslims do not go around beating their wives, raping children and killing unbelievers. I suppose they're not proper Muslims?
Slashdot Mirror
In most sane parts of the world, you'd get ONE joke story and that would be it. A whole bunch of feeble jokes is not funnier than one feeble joke.
It's not like anyone forces an artist to sign a recording contract.
Anyone that brings "artists" into this discussion is bringing a record company-sponsored fallacy into the argument.
Bullshit. I get sick and tired of slashdot zealots who think that anyone who disagrees with them is a fucking paid shill.
I couldn't care less about record companies or artists owning private jets and stately homes. All I know is that artists need to get money from somewhere, and a lot of us aren't particularly interested in going to live concerts now that we're over 18. I don't see why the people paying to see the artist live should subsidise me by letting me pay nothing to listen to the music at home.
But yeah, obviously I must work for the RIAA to think that, because everyone either believes exactly the same things you do or they're wrong.
Personally, I think a fair price for mp3's is under 10 cents these days.
Based on what, other than a sense of entitlement?
Nonsense like this is the inevitable result when trying to apply realworld paradigms to data (falsely referred to as 'digital goods').
If I pay to download a song from iTunes or wherever, in what way is it false to call that a purchase of digital goods? I get to legally listen to the song, the same as if I had bought it on a CD. The physical CD was never what I was buying anyway.
Why is this funny?
It's also about 4 trillion times funnier than the crap here today.
You are aware that this story is a joke, right?
The world is such a horrible place, I'm glad they took .33% of the year out to bring some joy into the world.
It's .28%
You are forgetting the giggle value derived from watching you lose your cool.
That's called trolling, asshat.
Dunno about you, but for me, the word office is defined as that place where my computer happens to be located when I boot the 'work' image.
That's cool and everything, but in the real world people do indeed mainly work in offices. We don't commute just for something to do.
hey, at least in future years you can say that you were there for the great /. implosion of 2013.
It would be like saying you'd been at the filming of the Happy Days episode with the Fonz and the shark.
Don't encourage them.
Not funny is not funny, however you try to analyse it.
Unless you were actually looking over someone's shoulder, and it wasn't obviously an iPhone, how would you know that their phone wasn't a Windows phone?
I think it's totally immoral to charge anyone 'poor' (where you define that line isn't something I'll debate about right now) any more than the cost of production, while the cost of R&D can be charged to those who can actually afford it.
If all drug research and production was state-owned everyone would pay towards it through their taxes, so that the poor would rightly pay less than the rich, assuming tax was progressive and enforced properly.
The idea of intellectual property is that you no longer have to bother doing a good job, you just have to own the right to something imaginary and you can make people pay for it.
The drugs are not "imaginary". And anyway, under capitalism, how can you stop the drug companies making profits off them?
I personally don't see why anyone should be allowed to make any profit at all from things like life-saving drugs. Their research and development should be publicly funded and the results freely available.
But that would be socialism, so I don't suppose many of the US readers here would be too keen on the idea. Obviously the free market will work out best, just as long as we get rid of pesky patents, "safety" testing and so on.
You do know the R&D stands for research and design.
Apart from the fact that it stands for research and development, you are quite correct.
Capitalism is only good for iPhones or other unnecessary luxuries, since I don't give a toss if Apple can persuade people to spend five hundred quid on a piece of electronic jewellery
Only a complete fool, April or otherwise, would base anything on imaginary property. There is nothing intellectual about that.
All property is imaginary. Anything external to you can only be described as belonging to you because of the cultural and legal framework that defines property. Property is a matter of convention, not fact.
So intellectual property is no more or less foolish than any other kind of property.
"Director of privacy at Google" is the only funny April Fool's joke on slashdot this year.
Luckily, April 1st fell on a bank/public holiday here in the UK, so I wasn't at work to suffer this irritation from slashdot.
a non-interventionist, loving god whose gay son does crowd pleasing magic tricks
That's one interpretation you don't see championed much by the bible bashers.
I know some very religious people who are highly intelligent, caring, charitable and extremely honest people that I have tremendous respect for, I still think their beliefs are stupid though - but I don't think THEY are stupid, I just think nobody is smart enough not to be wrong some of the time.
"And love th' offender, yet detest th' offence" (Pope - no, Alexander, not the Vatican guy).
Yes, but (at least in civilised countries) Muslims do not go around beating their wives, raping children and killing unbelievers. I suppose they're not proper Muslims?