Nah, the americanized anti-hero will be 'buff' to the point of anatomic impossibility, scarred, tattooed, and posess trendy yet intimidating facial hair. He will also posess a brash personality and mysterious past.
Rediculous body armor is also a possibility, as are very, very large guns.
But what if they all have reality distortion fields!?! Too many Steves and the space-time continuum as we know it could be rent asunder by the BS! Dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria! And there are those who believe this has already happened...
Since CCP is all DX10 happy with their graphics overhaul, I'm not holding my breath for any kind of linux/mac client beyond simply getting their current client to work better under WINE.
You're right. Because no musician ever plays gigs to get exposure. Nope, they just sit in their mansion, and pop out a CD every year and make a 7 figure salary. Are you really that ignorant to think that situation applies to more than the top 0.1% of performers?
Personally, I think recordings are a valid product. Not everyone can attend a performance for a number of reasons. Recordings are what brought quality music to the masses in the first place. Before, only the affluent could listen to the London Symphony, for example, but with recording technology they became accessible to the masses. That was a GOOD thing for society.
Now, I agree, $17 for a CD is ridiculous. Especially with the common practice of using one good track to sell 15 crap ones. But, free distribution of recordings is ridiculous as well. I think with digital distribution becoming ubiquitous, we need to rethink distribution fundamentally. Personally, I think Apple is doing a good job of it. Reasonable pricing per track, and discounts for full album purchases. All they need to do is allow format shifting (Which by removing Fair Play they accomplish) and fair use is protected.
Mass production of quality recordings is a very good thing in the long run. Compensating those who not only make the performances, but also those who preserve them is a good thing too. Imagine if we could just pop in a CD and listen to Bach perform! That experience is lost in time, but technology means we never have to lose something like that again.
We just need to stop the abuse of recorded works on both sides of the fence, and we will all be better off for it in the long term.
I agree on non-renewable time limitations on copyright. I also think the rights should be non-transferrable, and fair use needs to be better defined to cover legitimate personal usage. (Such as archival copies and format shifting)
You can't have a fair free market on a product that anyone with a cd drive can make perfect dupplications of your product in seconds for next to no cost. An artist spends time and effort learning how to make their art, then time and effort creating something, then more time, effort, and money to produce it in a way that it can be sold. Then some jackass runs off some copies and undercuts.
The original artist has a price floor they can't go below and still sustain themselves. The person copying has a much lower price floor that the original artist can't remotely compete with.
I won't disagree with that. But you see a fundamental difference between 'It should be free' and 'it should be subsidized by the government'. Most people are arguing for the first.
Biggest thing to fix copyright: make it non-transferrable. The artist owns their work and CAN'T transfer those rights to a 3rd party. Put a reasonable time limitation on it before it hits public domain. Non-renewable.
TO clarify my stance: I record a performance and intend to sell copies of that recording. As far as I'm concerned, you have NO right to make copies of it for your friends. If they want it, they can buy it from me. If they don't want to buy it from me, then they can't have it. Once it hits public domain do whatever you want with it. Until then, you are NOT entitled to do what you want with a copy of that recording beyond fair use. (personal backups and format shifting)
I don't want to restrict what people do with their purchases, and fully support fair use of things. But downloading art off the internet that you didn't pay for in the first place isn't fair use. Not in the slightest.
Also keep in mind that these laws affect a lot more than mp3's. An ex-teacher of mine does custom arrangements of pieces for high schools. (Mostly marching bands) Doing so takes quite a bit of time and skill, and he has to get permission from copyright holders of the originals where applicable. Well, copyright gives him some protection from people simply photocopying his scores and giving them to their music educator friends. He often spends months on a single score for a single group, and the loss of one customer because of a illegitimate copy costs him months of income. He has to viciously protect his work to survive. It is a very real issue in ways most people here have no clue about. And the idea of 'information should be free' can be quite destructive to a lot of good people. There is more to the music industry than the RIAA. Many people would do well to realize that.
Ah, but it's not free. It's just not paid for by the student. SOMEONE is paying for these goods/services. If music/entertainment is so important to the mental well being of a student, then the cost should be covered by scholarships/loans as well.
Well if you're going that far back, recordings and copies weren't really possible, so of course they weren't considered. (Depending on the medium in question)
When I was in college working towards a performance degree, I spent 8 hours a day just practicing, generating no income, simply to prepare myself to begin making money from my craft. This was on top of a part-time job and classes. And it's not like when you hit a professional level, suddenly every note you play generates a paycheck. If you think doing anything on a professional level musically takes a 'day of work for a lifetime of returns' you're a fucking idiot. It take a LOT of time and a LOT of hard work, and unless you're some POS pop star blessed by a label, it's crappy income.
Is the system broken? Yes. Copyright reform is sorely needed. Expecting artists to work for free isn't the answer. You aren't entitled to shit.
I buy stuff I want instead of getting it free because I want to support stuff I like. When things don't make money, they tend to disappear. I don't want that to happen to stuff I like.
Theft is a bad word to use in this situation. But the lack of an accurate term does not negate the issue at hand.
'You did something with a creative work without permission of it's creator' - we need a word for that. Until we have one, 'theft' is used even though it doesn't fit very well.
there is nothing imaginery about the fact that if you work for years producing some digital content, you have the right to decide what to charge for it.
You have the privilege to charge what you'd like for it as granted to you by the law of the land. It is not a right. The privilege can be taken away at the whim of a plurality of the citizens. And you have the privilege to live your life without it being prematurely ended by another person. It is not a right. The privilege can be taken aaway at the whim of a plurality of the citizens.
It can be argued that there is no such thing as a 'right'. Societies set up rules to create these rights for the people. The difference between a 'right' and a 'privilege' is nonexistant. They both exist based on the whims of the people. Therefore, your arguement is merely semantic.
Actually, we might start seeing products created as ART for the love of ART (as opposed to money), instead of aimed at some unintelligent demographic. And I'm fine with that. Hate to break it to you, but most high art was paid for. Michaelangelo didn't do the Sistine Chapel because he was bored one weekend. Bach didn't write hundreds of cantatas to be a nice guy. These artists were commissioned and paid for their work.
You can't dedicate your time to creating art when you need to have a career too just to survive.
Bullshit. Even the 'free' services, such as NPR, sustain because of consumer funding. Just instead of setting a price, they ask for donations. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, if it goes away, so do the artist and performers.
Creating for the sake of creation is nice and all, but it doesn't pay the rent or feed your children.
And not having free music hurts the college students in what way? We're not talking about food or housing. We're talking about entertainment. It is not a necessity. If students don't have enough money to buy music they get along without it. Go to the library and read a book if you're bored.
Wise Man say: "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly."
Fully agreed. Speaking as a musician, anyone who thinks they are entitled to my hard work for free can kiss my ass. To all the people who push this 'information wants to be free' nonsense I ask this: What do you give freely to society? Where is your free contribution to the betterment of humanity? Don't expect others to do things you are unwilling to do yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
The GP forgot that 'Quality' and 'Market Success' often have nothing to do with each other.
Nah, the americanized anti-hero will be 'buff' to the point of anatomic impossibility, scarred, tattooed, and posess trendy yet intimidating facial hair. He will also posess a brash personality and mysterious past.
Rediculous body armor is also a possibility, as are very, very large guns.
And there are those who believe this has already happened...
True, but DX9 is still not cross-platform. So it's not going to be a native client.
Since CCP is all DX10 happy with their graphics overhaul, I'm not holding my breath for any kind of linux/mac client beyond simply getting their current client to work better under WINE.
Your spending will earn you gametime. It's brilliantly evil, and is actually a Credit Card 'Reward' that I can honestly say I'd use. (Unfortunately)
But I could never, never take that thing out of my wallet with a straight face.
You're right. Because no musician ever plays gigs to get exposure. Nope, they just sit in their mansion, and pop out a CD every year and make a 7 figure salary. Are you really that ignorant to think that situation applies to more than the top 0.1% of performers?
Personally, I think recordings are a valid product. Not everyone can attend a performance for a number of reasons. Recordings are what brought quality music to the masses in the first place. Before, only the affluent could listen to the London Symphony, for example, but with recording technology they became accessible to the masses. That was a GOOD thing for society.
Now, I agree, $17 for a CD is ridiculous. Especially with the common practice of using one good track to sell 15 crap ones. But, free distribution of recordings is ridiculous as well. I think with digital distribution becoming ubiquitous, we need to rethink distribution fundamentally. Personally, I think Apple is doing a good job of it. Reasonable pricing per track, and discounts for full album purchases. All they need to do is allow format shifting (Which by removing Fair Play they accomplish) and fair use is protected.
Mass production of quality recordings is a very good thing in the long run. Compensating those who not only make the performances, but also those who preserve them is a good thing too. Imagine if we could just pop in a CD and listen to Bach perform! That experience is lost in time, but technology means we never have to lose something like that again.
We just need to stop the abuse of recorded works on both sides of the fence, and we will all be better off for it in the long term.
I agree on non-renewable time limitations on copyright. I also think the rights should be non-transferrable, and fair use needs to be better defined to cover legitimate personal usage. (Such as archival copies and format shifting)
But wait you don't use those things to make money, so they're fair game, right? You're contradicting yourself.
You can't have a fair free market on a product that anyone with a cd drive can make perfect dupplications of your product in seconds for next to no cost. An artist spends time and effort learning how to make their art, then time and effort creating something, then more time, effort, and money to produce it in a way that it can be sold. Then some jackass runs off some copies and undercuts.
The original artist has a price floor they can't go below and still sustain themselves. The person copying has a much lower price floor that the original artist can't remotely compete with.
I won't disagree with that. But you see a fundamental difference between 'It should be free' and 'it should be subsidized by the government'. Most people are arguing for the first.
Biggest thing to fix copyright: make it non-transferrable. The artist owns their work and CAN'T transfer those rights to a 3rd party. Put a reasonable time limitation on it before it hits public domain. Non-renewable.
TO clarify my stance: I record a performance and intend to sell copies of that recording. As far as I'm concerned, you have NO right to make copies of it for your friends. If they want it, they can buy it from me. If they don't want to buy it from me, then they can't have it. Once it hits public domain do whatever you want with it. Until then, you are NOT entitled to do what you want with a copy of that recording beyond fair use. (personal backups and format shifting)
I don't want to restrict what people do with their purchases, and fully support fair use of things. But downloading art off the internet that you didn't pay for in the first place isn't fair use. Not in the slightest.
Also keep in mind that these laws affect a lot more than mp3's. An ex-teacher of mine does custom arrangements of pieces for high schools. (Mostly marching bands) Doing so takes quite a bit of time and skill, and he has to get permission from copyright holders of the originals where applicable. Well, copyright gives him some protection from people simply photocopying his scores and giving them to their music educator friends. He often spends months on a single score for a single group, and the loss of one customer because of a illegitimate copy costs him months of income. He has to viciously protect his work to survive. It is a very real issue in ways most people here have no clue about. And the idea of 'information should be free' can be quite destructive to a lot of good people. There is more to the music industry than the RIAA. Many people would do well to realize that.
Ah, but it's not free. It's just not paid for by the student. SOMEONE is paying for these goods/services. If music/entertainment is so important to the mental well being of a student, then the cost should be covered by scholarships/loans as well.
Well if you're going that far back, recordings and copies weren't really possible, so of course they weren't considered. (Depending on the medium in question)
I would imagine that adequate food and housing affects a students state of mind as well, but that isn't free.
When I was in college working towards a performance degree, I spent 8 hours a day just practicing, generating no income, simply to prepare myself to begin making money from my craft. This was on top of a part-time job and classes. And it's not like when you hit a professional level, suddenly every note you play generates a paycheck. If you think doing anything on a professional level musically takes a 'day of work for a lifetime of returns' you're a fucking idiot. It take a LOT of time and a LOT of hard work, and unless you're some POS pop star blessed by a label, it's crappy income.
Is the system broken? Yes. Copyright reform is sorely needed. Expecting artists to work for free isn't the answer. You aren't entitled to shit.
I buy stuff I want instead of getting it free because I want to support stuff I like. When things don't make money, they tend to disappear. I don't want that to happen to stuff I like.
What does preventing the illegal use of creative works have to do with censorship? Seriously, WTF?
Theft is a bad word to use in this situation. But the lack of an accurate term does not negate the issue at hand.
'You did something with a creative work without permission of it's creator' - we need a word for that. Until we have one, 'theft' is used even though it doesn't fit very well.
You have the privilege to charge what you'd like for it as granted to you by the law of the land. It is not a right. The privilege can be taken away at the whim of a plurality of the citizens. And you have the privilege to live your life without it being prematurely ended by another person. It is not a right. The privilege can be taken aaway at the whim of a plurality of the citizens.
It can be argued that there is no such thing as a 'right'. Societies set up rules to create these rights for the people. The difference between a 'right' and a 'privilege' is nonexistant. They both exist based on the whims of the people. Therefore, your arguement is merely semantic.
You can't dedicate your time to creating art when you need to have a career too just to survive.
Bullshit. Even the 'free' services, such as NPR, sustain because of consumer funding. Just instead of setting a price, they ask for donations. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, if it goes away, so do the artist and performers.
Creating for the sake of creation is nice and all, but it doesn't pay the rent or feed your children.
And not having free music hurts the college students in what way? We're not talking about food or housing. We're talking about entertainment. It is not a necessity. If students don't have enough money to buy music they get along without it. Go to the library and read a book if you're bored.
Wise Man say: "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly."
Fully agreed. Speaking as a musician, anyone who thinks they are entitled to my hard work for free can kiss my ass. To all the people who push this 'information wants to be free' nonsense I ask this: What do you give freely to society? Where is your free contribution to the betterment of humanity? Don't expect others to do things you are unwilling to do yourself.