You are being sarcastic, but what you are saying is true in a non-sarcastic way.
Esthetics are entirely subjective. If millions of people love a song, then it IS a good song. The established music industry selects music that will appeal to the broadest market possible... they choose the music that the greatest number of people will think is good.
I can understand if you have taste that is different than the mainstream... that is great, and there will plenty of people who will cater to your tastes... but please don't pretend that your taste is somehow better than anyone elses in any real sense.
The RIAA doesn't sign artists or release albums. Record companies sign artists and release albums. The RIAA is an industry lobby group for the record companies.
As for record labels "stealing" a band from Myspace, if MySpace doesn't have an exclusive contract, then it isn't stealing. No-one is forcing MySpace to sell MP3s, and no-one is forcing the artists to sign up with the big record labels.
Myspace is not going to set up a recording studio and record label for artists, because that is a major investment in money, and a huge risk. The reason record labels don't pay artists much is because record labels spend millions in giving out advances, in promoting the music, and most artists never make back the money spent on them. The successful artists who sell a lot of records end up subsidizing 10 other artists who lost money. The whole thing is a process that requires a lot of insider connections, and carries a lot of risk.
MySpace is interested in selling MP3s, because they already have the infrastructure in place to serve lots of data over the internet, and they would be getting the content they are selling for free (artists only get payed for the music they sell). This means that the initial investment is quite low (just the costs of setting up the credit card ordering system), and the risk is quite low (even if people don't buy the mp3s, the server space and bandwidth can be used to server normal MySpace content).
1. The number of people getting signed to a real, professional record label to release an album is going to be extremly small. Most album releases are glorified demo tapes. If there is no money involved, there is nothing to fight over.
2. If there was some sort of legal trouble, it would cause all sorts of bad publicity.
It is good to see they are going to ban the bible and the koran... after all, they have lots of violence and sex with under-aged woman! It is about time they locked up every damn pervert Christian, every damn pervert Muslim, and every sicko priest and immam and throw away the key!
Once they ban the Bible and the Koran, they can move on to Shakespeare!
Except that if you pass a law like this in the U.S., most people will just hop online and get their information from another country... like most brits who wanted to were able to get the NYT article.
Secondly, publish anything online and you are automatically suspectible to be taken to court in criminal or civil proceedings IN ANY COUNTRY!!!
Don't say anything bad about Kim Jung Il (It is a crime in North Korea)... Also, please don't say anything offensive to Islam... it is a crime in many countries. Somehow I don't think you would feel that Americans should be fined or facing criminal charges for breaking those laws!
I never quite get this idea that one right, whatever you may pick, say, "freedom of speech", is a total absolute that overrides all other rights. "Free speech" is one right. "A fair trial" is another right. Sometimes, like in this case, the rights conflict.
You are assuming that free speech is not consistant with a fair trial. There is no reason to believe that just because a newspaper prints facts or opinions (stated as such) about a case, that it will make it impossible to find impartial jurors. If some people's impartiality is compromised by news reporting, it is the job of the defense to screen those jurors out at the pre-trial. There is 60 million people in the U.K.... assuming even half of them are elgible for jury duty, I am sure that a handful of impartial people can be found to the satisfaction of the defense.
If you are so worried about people getting a fair trail, why are you willing to punish the newspaper (by censoring what they can print), without proving beyond a reasonable doubt that what they print will harm the accused? Punishing people indiscrimiatly without trial seems like a strange way to ensure a fair trial, now doesn't it?
Few would argue that banning contract killings interfered with the "free speech" of the orderer, as they had to use words to make the contract
In the contract killing, it is not the speech that is illegal... it is the act of exchanging money for the service of murder. For example, a newspaper or history book could republish a murder contract, and it wouldn't be illegal, as it would be simply for the public record. Or someone could write a murder contract as part of a fictional novel, and it would not be illegal. The speech of a murder contract is not illegal, the speech is simply the evidence used to determine that there was a murder contract.
Again, I suspect little support for perjury being swept away as a free speech issue. If perjury is wrong because it damages the cause of justice, then printing newspaper stories that ruin somebody's chance of a fair trial is also wrong.
Purjury is a crime because it deals directly with testimony under oath that will effect the outcome of the trial. Unless I am mistaken about the way the legal system works in the U.K., newspaper articles and editorials are not admitted into evidence in criminal trials.
The U.S. does have libel laws. The hypothetical case you mentioned would be libel in the U.S. But this is not what the story is about... the story is about the New York Times withholding information that is true to the best of their knowledge, because the facts might predispose people to believe the person is guilty. That is not libel, that is censorship, and that is totally messed up!
Libel laws are supposed to prevent papers from delibratly and maliciously slandering a person... Not for printing accurate information about a person. It is very dangerous to a free or democratic society to say that papers cannot print information that is true. The details of a criminal case that involves potential mass-murder are important to the public.
Here is another example... what if the U.K. banned all Slashdot articles and posts that have negative information about Microsoft... because Microsoft was fighting a legal case in the E.U. and incriminating true information about Microsoft could incriminate Microsoft in the mind of the public. Would you still support censorship? Well, replace Microsoft with the name of a suspected terrorist, and you have the same thing.
Judging by the fact that the vast majority of musicians don't make a living from their work, I would say we are in no danger of losing music if the market dies. People will still make music for fun, or because they want to pick up chicks, or whatever. I used to work for a record company and at the time it was impossible to listen to all the demo tapes and CDs because of so many people sending stuff in... most were so desperate for attention they would easily cut a record for nothing.
As long as being a popular musician gets you respect, and gives you sex appeal, there are going to be people making music. I am not exactly living in fear of the day there is no longer a market for recorded music!
Mac is more than software, it is also a life-style choice and fashion statement.
I think one of the things that scares away some geeks from the mac, is the fact that so many people love the mac for reasons that has nothing to do with the software or hardware. People buy a mac for the same reason they buy a Mini Cooper and Dansk furniture... they think it makes them "funky" and "different". Where as people who don't see consumer items as a source of social identity have a hard time dealing with the whole mac image. I don't want to be making a statement of my consumer ethos by purchasing a mac, I just want a good computer!
I am not trying to defend Windows (OSX is the better OS), but to be fair, if Microsoft offered anything like the iLife suite for Windows, they would be sued for uncompetitive buisness practices. If is is "uncompetitive" for Microsoft to offer a media player and a browser already installed with the OS, it is most certainly "uncompetitive" to offer software that does photo editing, video editing, music editing, DVD authoring, and web editing and blogging software all comparable to actual commercial software.
Microsoft can't offer any useful software with the OS, because of legal restrictions. If our selfless government and brave law enforcement officers weren't protecting us from the villianous offense of offering free audio editing software, I am sure that Microsoft would be offering a competing software package.
This is what they call "guerilla marketing"...
on
New "Get a Mac" TV ads
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"What is a great way to promote the new Apple product to geeks? I know, we will have a story posted on Slashdot featuring the new ads, the geeks love Slashdot! And it will have real 'street-cred' as it will be coming from Slashdot so they will think it is from other geeks. Perfect."
It isn't a question if Apple is doing paid advertizing on Slashdot - They most certainly are. The question is:
1. Will Slashdotters fall for it?
2. Is someone at Slashdot really getting paid? Or are they getting a free ipod or something totally lame like that. If Commander Taco isn't getting at least $30,000 for this "article", then I lose all respect! It is one thing to sell out, it is another thing to sell out like a total buster!
Turns out for some things regulation is better - look at how a poor country like Cuba has better healthcare (with lower infant mortality rates) than the wealthy US.
Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate because 80% of pregnancies end in abortion. If there is even the slightest possibility of a problem with the pregnancy, it is terminated. There is no medical miracle in Cuba (otherwise Americans would be emmigrating to Cuba to get health care)... It is simply that their social policy as an anomalous effect on infant mortality statistics.
But aside from that, the United States has more and stricter regulations on medical care than Cuba. If doctors and hospitals needed to meet the same extreme government regulations and reporting that hospitals in the United States need to maintain, and could be sued and punished the same way doctors in the U.S. are, health care in Cuba would be economicly unfeasable.
It's for this reason that the United States, with fewer government controls has a superior and chepaer broadband, telecoms network...oh what? Crap.
First of all, when you compare the entire United States, a continent spanning diverse nation of 300 million people, to a tiny segregated section of the richest few million in Europe, of course you are going to get better resultsin Europe. A more accurate comparison would the the EU vs US, in which case most of the U.S. has vastly better broadband service than E.U..
Second, once again you are believing the mythology of an American free market. The U.S. has one of the most regulated and controlled telecom industries in the world... If you are comparing a country like Sweden to the U.S., you will see that Sweden historically had more competition and choice in telecom then that United States. Sweden had a multi-provider system even back when the U.S. had a government regulated Bell monopoly and Sweden's system is far more open to foriegn competition than the U.S. system.
Sorry, but you need to reexamine your beliefs... if you research, you will find:
1. The so-called "success" of socialism are widely exasurated.
2. The United States is not particularly any more free market than Canada or Western Europe or Asian Tiger countries. Often, so-called "socialist" countries of Western Europe are actually more free-market and have less regulation than the United States.
For fans of board games, having Catan on Xbox Live is like the holy grail. I don't know how big a market share board game geek represent, but Microsoft just scored some major geek points, for sure.
If I can't play media without restrictions on an OS, then I am going to switch to an OS that I can play media without restrictions. It is all good that Microsoft is concerned about what media companies want... but if they want me to purchase their product, they are going to have to worry about what I want too! Especially since it is the customer, not the media company, which pays their bills.
While it is true that DRM makes life difficult... I don't think it is critical when you are talking about preserving old and historically significant media. Most people agree that it is very difficult or impossible to make DRM that isn't easily cracked. The difficult thing is that cracking DRM, or distributing the method of cracking DRM, is a crime and you can end up in prison.
The real problem isn't the DRM (which is simply an annoyance), but the special legal status that DRM is given. If DRM encourages an organization to distribute digital copies of historically significant media, that they wouldn't otherwise distribute without DRM, then that is fantastic! The more copies that exist, the less likely something is to be lost. Lets just make sure that we are able to crack the DRM legally.
I am not an eve player, but from what I read, this does not appear to be a technical exploit, or a violation of the terms of service, or anything like that.
This was basicly an in-game version of a pyramid scheme or ponzi scheme. You can read about pyramid schemes here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme... but basicly "A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, usually without any product or service being delivered." This is basicly the same scam as Amway and other multi-level marketing scams (and the same model most government social insurance programs are based on).
Apparently the scam was run IN-GAME... meaning that this wasn't a real life scam that will get someone thrown in prison in real life - Financial scamming appears to be legal gameplay in Eve, the same way it is not a crime to attack other players in the game.
Since when did the FTC all the sudden start taking this anti-legislation stance? So they will only legislate issues after-the-fact?
Seeing as the FTC is a part of the executive branch of government, they have no buisness legislating anything - before the fact, after the fact, or because of the fact. If you remember your grade school civics class, making laws is the job of congress. I know people love the idea of dictatorship and centralized authority, but until the president officially dissolves congress, we still have to pretend there is some sort of seperation of powers, OK?
But aside from that, why shouldn't the FTC be anti-legislation? What people who are big government regulation enthusiasts seem to forget is that every bit of legislation, in order to be effective, needs resources to use for enforcement. Since government regulation is increasing exponentially, that means that:
Option 1. Government spending needs to increase exponentially in order to properly enforce the new legislation that is being churned out. This means significantly higher taxes and cuts to other government provided services in order to pay for the enforcement. Higher taxes and less services means lower standard of living. This is not really politically viable... no-one is going to vote for a politician who is for decreasing services and benifits while increasing taxes.
or
2. The government needs to get rid of existing legislation in order to free up funding/manpower for enforcing the new laws. This is also completly politically unviable, because a politician is never going to want to be seen as going against a "good law", even if that means freeing up resources to support a better law.
or
3. The government will increase new legislation, without getting rid of old legislation, and without increasing funding for enforcement - It will look good politically, but it will be poorly enforced and in the rare occasions when it is enforced it will be for some political theater and not really effect the market as intended.
If extremly specific sections of the bill of rights can be outright ignored without anyone complaining, then I don't think that the whole "Progress of Science and useful Arts" argument is going to hold much water.
The price you pay in order for people not being allowed to own guns, and for companies not being allowed to advertise cola when kids might be watching on television, and for throwing U.S. citizens in prison without trial as "enemy combatants", or whatever convientient unconstitutional laws that have popular support - is that only large companies will be allowed to develop software products because of the patent minefield.
Absolutly!!! As we have learned from the Slashdot story on car anti-theft systems, and insurance companies denying claims against people with anti-theft systems ("there is no way anyone could have stolen your car, you must be trying to scam us!!!")... this kind of system makes things less secure, because no-one is going to believe you if you have money stolen.
And not only that, if you try to dispute a charge, not only will they deny that - You will be under investigation for fraud!
So long as I am only liable for up to $50 of fradulent transaction on my credit card, and all I have to do is phone them to let them know of fraudulent transactions, there is no way I am going to adopt a new system that actually puts me at greater risk.
All the places offering movie downloads are going about it wrong. The whole point of movie downloads isn't so I can get another mainstream movie release that is already on DVD... or a TV show I already get for free on cable... the whole point of movie downloads would be so I can get something obscure that wouldn't be easily available on conventional medium. There is an initial investment of packaging, manufacturing, promotion, etc. for DVDs that mean a lot of obsucre stuff just doesn't have a big enough market to warrent the initial investment. However, with downloads, the cost off adding another product is marginal - The data storage costs are not prohibitive at all.
YouTube is already doing this to a lesser extent (although I don't know how, exactly, YouTube plans to make money)... but services like that are the future, not an online imitation of the local video store.
Meats that aren't treated with this product will advertise that fact. In the same way you assume that meat is not Kosher or not Hallal if it is not specificly sold as such, you assume that your meat has been treated with this product if you are not told such. There is no warning nessicary on meat "WARNING: THIS MEAT IS NOT KOSHER! WARMING: THIS MEAT IS NOT HALLAL!!!"... you simply assume it is not Kosher or Hallal by default.
Also, there is no warning that vegetables have been treated with pesticides. You naturally assume it is the case. If you want food that isn't treated with pesticides, you go to the organic section of the supermarket and buy there. There is no pesticide label on all vegetables.
If you are putting a warning about something like this, which does not effect the nutritional value of the food, there is a agenda to it. People with a religious or social agenda want to ban all biotechnology, and so they figure a big warning will scare you away from it (after all, a warning implies danger). Without a warning, people would simply go to the organic section of the supermarket and buy the meat without this additive... but with a big orange warning sticker, that is clearly intented to cause fear and alarm.
Slashdot Mirror
You are being sarcastic, but what you are saying is true in a non-sarcastic way.
Esthetics are entirely subjective. If millions of people love a song, then it IS a good song. The established music industry selects music that will appeal to the broadest market possible... they choose the music that the greatest number of people will think is good.
I can understand if you have taste that is different than the mainstream... that is great, and there will plenty of people who will cater to your tastes... but please don't pretend that your taste is somehow better than anyone elses in any real sense.
The RIAA doesn't sign artists or release albums. Record companies sign artists and release albums. The RIAA is an industry lobby group for the record companies.
As for record labels "stealing" a band from Myspace, if MySpace doesn't have an exclusive contract, then it isn't stealing. No-one is forcing MySpace to sell MP3s, and no-one is forcing the artists to sign up with the big record labels.
Myspace is not going to set up a recording studio and record label for artists, because that is a major investment in money, and a huge risk. The reason record labels don't pay artists much is because record labels spend millions in giving out advances, in promoting the music, and most artists never make back the money spent on them. The successful artists who sell a lot of records end up subsidizing 10 other artists who lost money. The whole thing is a process that requires a lot of insider connections, and carries a lot of risk.
MySpace is interested in selling MP3s, because they already have the infrastructure in place to serve lots of data over the internet, and they would be getting the content they are selling for free (artists only get payed for the music they sell). This means that the initial investment is quite low (just the costs of setting up the credit card ordering system), and the risk is quite low (even if people don't buy the mp3s, the server space and bandwidth can be used to server normal MySpace content).
I am sure MySpace won't lay claim to them:
1. The number of people getting signed to a real, professional record label to release an album is going to be extremly small. Most album releases are glorified demo tapes. If there is no money involved, there is nothing to fight over.
2. If there was some sort of legal trouble, it would cause all sorts of bad publicity.
Because we all know Communists are againt monopolies!
It is good to see they are going to ban the bible and the koran... after all, they have lots of violence and sex with under-aged woman! It is about time they locked up every damn pervert Christian, every damn pervert Muslim, and every sicko priest and immam and throw away the key!
Once they ban the Bible and the Koran, they can move on to Shakespeare!
Except that if you pass a law like this in the U.S., most people will just hop online and get their information from another country... like most brits who wanted to were able to get the NYT article.
Secondly, publish anything online and you are automatically suspectible to be taken to court in criminal or civil proceedings IN ANY COUNTRY!!!
Don't say anything bad about Kim Jung Il (It is a crime in North Korea)... Also, please don't say anything offensive to Islam... it is a crime in many countries. Somehow I don't think you would feel that Americans should be fined or facing criminal charges for breaking those laws!
I never quite get this idea that one right, whatever you may pick, say, "freedom of speech", is a total absolute that overrides all other rights. "Free speech" is one right. "A fair trial" is another right. Sometimes, like in this case, the rights conflict.
... assuming even half of them are elgible for jury duty, I am sure that a handful of impartial people can be found to the satisfaction of the defense.
You are assuming that free speech is not consistant with a fair trial. There is no reason to believe that just because a newspaper prints facts or opinions (stated as such) about a case, that it will make it impossible to find impartial jurors. If some people's impartiality is compromised by news reporting, it is the job of the defense to screen those jurors out at the pre-trial. There is 60 million people in the U.K.
If you are so worried about people getting a fair trail, why are you willing to punish the newspaper (by censoring what they can print), without proving beyond a reasonable doubt that what they print will harm the accused? Punishing people indiscrimiatly without trial seems like a strange way to ensure a fair trial, now doesn't it?
Few would argue that banning contract killings interfered with the "free speech" of the orderer, as they had to use words to make the contract
In the contract killing, it is not the speech that is illegal... it is the act of exchanging money for the service of murder. For example, a newspaper or history book could republish a murder contract, and it wouldn't be illegal, as it would be simply for the public record. Or someone could write a murder contract as part of a fictional novel, and it would not be illegal. The speech of a murder contract is not illegal, the speech is simply the evidence used to determine that there was a murder contract.
Again, I suspect little support for perjury being swept away as a free speech issue. If perjury is wrong because it damages the cause of justice, then printing newspaper stories that ruin somebody's chance of a fair trial is also wrong.
Purjury is a crime because it deals directly with testimony under oath that will effect the outcome of the trial. Unless I am mistaken about the way the legal system works in the U.K., newspaper articles and editorials are not admitted into evidence in criminal trials.
The U.S. does have libel laws. The hypothetical case you mentioned would be libel in the U.S. But this is not what the story is about... the story is about the New York Times withholding information that is true to the best of their knowledge, because the facts might predispose people to believe the person is guilty. That is not libel, that is censorship, and that is totally messed up!
Libel laws are supposed to prevent papers from delibratly and maliciously slandering a person... Not for printing accurate information about a person. It is very dangerous to a free or democratic society to say that papers cannot print information that is true. The details of a criminal case that involves potential mass-murder are important to the public.
Here is another example... what if the U.K. banned all Slashdot articles and posts that have negative information about Microsoft... because Microsoft was fighting a legal case in the E.U. and incriminating true information about Microsoft could incriminate Microsoft in the mind of the public. Would you still support censorship? Well, replace Microsoft with the name of a suspected terrorist, and you have the same thing.
Judging by the fact that the vast majority of musicians don't make a living from their work, I would say we are in no danger of losing music if the market dies. People will still make music for fun, or because they want to pick up chicks, or whatever. I used to work for a record company and at the time it was impossible to listen to all the demo tapes and CDs because of so many people sending stuff in... most were so desperate for attention they would easily cut a record for nothing.
As long as being a popular musician gets you respect, and gives you sex appeal, there are going to be people making music. I am not exactly living in fear of the day there is no longer a market for recorded music!
Mac is more than software, it is also a life-style choice and fashion statement.
I think one of the things that scares away some geeks from the mac, is the fact that so many people love the mac for reasons that has nothing to do with the software or hardware. People buy a mac for the same reason they buy a Mini Cooper and Dansk furniture... they think it makes them "funky" and "different". Where as people who don't see consumer items as a source of social identity have a hard time dealing with the whole mac image. I don't want to be making a statement of my consumer ethos by purchasing a mac, I just want a good computer!
I am not trying to defend Windows (OSX is the better OS), but to be fair, if Microsoft offered anything like the iLife suite for Windows, they would be sued for uncompetitive buisness practices. If is is "uncompetitive" for Microsoft to offer a media player and a browser already installed with the OS, it is most certainly "uncompetitive" to offer software that does photo editing, video editing, music editing, DVD authoring, and web editing and blogging software all comparable to actual commercial software.
Microsoft can't offer any useful software with the OS, because of legal restrictions. If our selfless government and brave law enforcement officers weren't protecting us from the villianous offense of offering free audio editing software, I am sure that Microsoft would be offering a competing software package.
"What is a great way to promote the new Apple product to geeks? I know, we will have a story posted on Slashdot featuring the new ads, the geeks love Slashdot! And it will have real 'street-cred' as it will be coming from Slashdot so they will think it is from other geeks. Perfect."
It isn't a question if Apple is doing paid advertizing on Slashdot - They most certainly are. The question is:
1. Will Slashdotters fall for it?
2. Is someone at Slashdot really getting paid? Or are they getting a free ipod or something totally lame like that. If Commander Taco isn't getting at least $30,000 for this "article", then I lose all respect! It is one thing to sell out, it is another thing to sell out like a total buster!
You can cite a reputable source for that statistic - right?
t ml
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2504499.h
The highest year for Cuba was 87% abortion rate, compared to the highest year for the U.S. which was about 27%.
Now, next time do a basic google search yourself, OK?
Turns out for some things regulation is better - look at how a poor country like Cuba has better healthcare (with lower infant mortality rates) than the wealthy US.
Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate because 80% of pregnancies end in abortion. If there is even the slightest possibility of a problem with the pregnancy, it is terminated. There is no medical miracle in Cuba (otherwise Americans would be emmigrating to Cuba to get health care)... It is simply that their social policy as an anomalous effect on infant mortality statistics.
But aside from that, the United States has more and stricter regulations on medical care than Cuba. If doctors and hospitals needed to meet the same extreme government regulations and reporting that hospitals in the United States need to maintain, and could be sued and punished the same way doctors in the U.S. are, health care in Cuba would be economicly unfeasable.
It's for this reason that the United States, with fewer government controls has a superior and chepaer broadband, telecoms network...oh what? Crap.
First of all, when you compare the entire United States, a continent spanning diverse nation of 300 million people, to a tiny segregated section of the richest few million in Europe, of course you are going to get better resultsin Europe. A more accurate comparison would the the EU vs US, in which case most of the U.S. has vastly better broadband service than E.U..
Second, once again you are believing the mythology of an American free market. The U.S. has one of the most regulated and controlled telecom industries in the world... If you are comparing a country like Sweden to the U.S., you will see that Sweden historically had more competition and choice in telecom then that United States. Sweden had a multi-provider system even back when the U.S. had a government regulated Bell monopoly and Sweden's system is far more open to foriegn competition than the U.S. system.
Sorry, but you need to reexamine your beliefs... if you research, you will find:
1. The so-called "success" of socialism are widely exasurated.
2. The United States is not particularly any more free market than Canada or Western Europe or Asian Tiger countries. Often, so-called "socialist" countries of Western Europe are actually more free-market and have less regulation than the United States.
For fans of board games, having Catan on Xbox Live is like the holy grail. I don't know how big a market share board game geek represent, but Microsoft just scored some major geek points, for sure.
If I can't play media without restrictions on an OS, then I am going to switch to an OS that I can play media without restrictions. It is all good that Microsoft is concerned about what media companies want... but if they want me to purchase their product, they are going to have to worry about what I want too! Especially since it is the customer, not the media company, which pays their bills.
While it is true that DRM makes life difficult... I don't think it is critical when you are talking about preserving old and historically significant media. Most people agree that it is very difficult or impossible to make DRM that isn't easily cracked. The difficult thing is that cracking DRM, or distributing the method of cracking DRM, is a crime and you can end up in prison.
The real problem isn't the DRM (which is simply an annoyance), but the special legal status that DRM is given. If DRM encourages an organization to distribute digital copies of historically significant media, that they wouldn't otherwise distribute without DRM, then that is fantastic! The more copies that exist, the less likely something is to be lost. Lets just make sure that we are able to crack the DRM legally.
I am not an eve player, but from what I read, this does not appear to be a technical exploit, or a violation of the terms of service, or anything like that.
... but basicly "A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, usually without any product or service being delivered." This is basicly the same scam as Amway and other multi-level marketing scams (and the same model most government social insurance programs are based on).
This was basicly an in-game version of a pyramid scheme or ponzi scheme. You can read about pyramid schemes here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme
Apparently the scam was run IN-GAME... meaning that this wasn't a real life scam that will get someone thrown in prison in real life - Financial scamming appears to be legal gameplay in Eve, the same way it is not a crime to attack other players in the game.
Since when did the FTC all the sudden start taking this anti-legislation stance? So they will only legislate issues after-the-fact?
Seeing as the FTC is a part of the executive branch of government, they have no buisness legislating anything - before the fact, after the fact, or because of the fact. If you remember your grade school civics class, making laws is the job of congress. I know people love the idea of dictatorship and centralized authority, but until the president officially dissolves congress, we still have to pretend there is some sort of seperation of powers, OK?
But aside from that, why shouldn't the FTC be anti-legislation? What people who are big government regulation enthusiasts seem to forget is that every bit of legislation, in order to be effective, needs resources to use for enforcement. Since government regulation is increasing exponentially, that means that:
Option 1. Government spending needs to increase exponentially in order to properly enforce the new legislation that is being churned out. This means significantly higher taxes and cuts to other government provided services in order to pay for the enforcement. Higher taxes and less services means lower standard of living. This is not really politically viable... no-one is going to vote for a politician who is for decreasing services and benifits while increasing taxes.
or
2. The government needs to get rid of existing legislation in order to free up funding/manpower for enforcing the new laws. This is also completly politically unviable, because a politician is never going to want to be seen as going against a "good law", even if that means freeing up resources to support a better law.
or
3. The government will increase new legislation, without getting rid of old legislation, and without increasing funding for enforcement - It will look good politically, but it will be poorly enforced and in the rare occasions when it is enforced it will be for some political theater and not really effect the market as intended.
If extremly specific sections of the bill of rights can be outright ignored without anyone complaining, then I don't think that the whole "Progress of Science and useful Arts" argument is going to hold much water.
The price you pay in order for people not being allowed to own guns, and for companies not being allowed to advertise cola when kids might be watching on television, and for throwing U.S. citizens in prison without trial as "enemy combatants", or whatever convientient unconstitutional laws that have popular support - is that only large companies will be allowed to develop software products because of the patent minefield.
You might not be able to send a rocket to the moon, but you sure as hell could make a small scale model that could get off the ground.
With something like "Free Energy", the old saying goes "I will believe it when I see it!".
Absolutly!!! As we have learned from the Slashdot story on car anti-theft systems, and insurance companies denying claims against people with anti-theft systems ("there is no way anyone could have stolen your car, you must be trying to scam us!!!")... this kind of system makes things less secure, because no-one is going to believe you if you have money stolen.
And not only that, if you try to dispute a charge, not only will they deny that - You will be under investigation for fraud!
So long as I am only liable for up to $50 of fradulent transaction on my credit card, and all I have to do is phone them to let them know of fraudulent transactions, there is no way I am going to adopt a new system that actually puts me at greater risk.
All the places offering movie downloads are going about it wrong. The whole point of movie downloads isn't so I can get another mainstream movie release that is already on DVD... or a TV show I already get for free on cable... the whole point of movie downloads would be so I can get something obscure that wouldn't be easily available on conventional medium. There is an initial investment of packaging, manufacturing, promotion, etc. for DVDs that mean a lot of obsucre stuff just doesn't have a big enough market to warrent the initial investment. However, with downloads, the cost off adding another product is marginal - The data storage costs are not prohibitive at all.
YouTube is already doing this to a lesser extent (although I don't know how, exactly, YouTube plans to make money)... but services like that are the future, not an online imitation of the local video store.
There is a simple solution to this:
Meats that aren't treated with this product will advertise that fact. In the same way you assume that meat is not Kosher or not Hallal if it is not specificly sold as such, you assume that your meat has been treated with this product if you are not told such. There is no warning nessicary on meat "WARNING: THIS MEAT IS NOT KOSHER! WARMING: THIS MEAT IS NOT HALLAL!!!"... you simply assume it is not Kosher or Hallal by default.
Also, there is no warning that vegetables have been treated with pesticides. You naturally assume it is the case. If you want food that isn't treated with pesticides, you go to the organic section of the supermarket and buy there. There is no pesticide label on all vegetables.
If you are putting a warning about something like this, which does not effect the nutritional value of the food, there is a agenda to it. People with a religious or social agenda want to ban all biotechnology, and so they figure a big warning will scare you away from it (after all, a warning implies danger). Without a warning, people would simply go to the organic section of the supermarket and buy the meat without this additive... but with a big orange warning sticker, that is clearly intented to cause fear and alarm.