The folks who launched Grokster (and Kazaa, et al) saw the enormous popularity of the original Napster, understood that 90% of Napster's traffic was pirated material, and (correctly) realized that they could launch their own file sharing application and make money hand over fist in advertising revenues.
If that can be demonstrated in court, that research was done and that they've marketed this towards piracy, then it seems to me that something should be done. (IANAL, I'm just speaking about ethically) But I don't think it's fair to draw that conclusion based on, "well, ya know, just LOOK at it."
(I'm not accusing you of drawing your conclusion that way, but that's all I have to go on)
Perhaps the most important thing implicit thing they've done is left the network running when it's obvious to anybody with a brain what it's used for. If they were truly against piracy, they'd shut it down and stop making the software available until they can come out with a new version with filters or other controls.
Well, by the same reasoning, knife manufacturers know that knives are used to stab people. They don't pull their knives off the market until they can make stab-proof knives. Ok, admittedly, "stab-proof knives" sounds a bit sillier than "filtering in a P2P network". Still, in each case, it's not clear how such a thing should be accomplished, nor is it clear how effective a given implementation will be.
I would shy away from the word "usually." "contributory" and "aiding and abetting" are often applied to lots of non-life-threatening crimes and torts.
Yes, but those usually require a positive action which contributes to a crime. That's not the same as someone being charged for failing to take positive action to prevent a crime.
I disagree with your contention that "A gun is PRINCIPALLY a weapon". A gun is principally a chunk of well-formed metal. It can make a very effective weapon, and is often used as a weapon, but it is not by its nature a weapon sitting quietly on a table. As I said before, the definition of weapon seems to include a precondition of use, not mere existence.
The definition of the object as a "gun" also seems to include precondition of use. Insofar as the object is a lump of well-formed metal sitting quietly on a table, the object is neither a gun nor a weapon, but merely a well-formed lump of metal.
Therefore, it is still valid to say that "guns are weapons", since its use as a gun (the precondition of it being a "gun") also constitutes use as a weapon. Admittedly, though, you could use it as a weapon without using it as a gun, which would be to club someone with it. However, at that point, it's a club, and not a gun, but still a weapon.
Hey.... Don't blame me, you started down this path.
I think everybody agrees on this. That's why MGM isn't trying to ban P2P. They're trying to put Grokster out of business, because they set up a business to capitalize on the widespread popularity of piracy, and they're profiting from it.
Ok, then tell me, what is it about Grokster that specifically targets "pirates" as their consumer-base? Do they have something built-in which allows DRM stripping or something? Do they have CD/DVD ripping software built in? I mean, I've never used grokster, so I'm not familiar with what features it has as opposed to other P2P software. So what, exactly, makes the Grokster software makes it more useful for "piracy" than other data-sharing?
But in this case, it's clear that Grokster's founders designed the software as part of an overall plan to provide a medium that would be largely used for piracy, and to make money off of it. That's not neutral.
Compare this to somebody who designs a P2P app from the ground up to be permissions-based, or who designs a P2P app with hooks built in for filtering (as Grokster president Wayne Rosso is now doing with Mashboxx), or somebody who sets up a Torrent site and only allows torrents for content that's published under Creative Commons.
Now including filters and such are valid actions a software designer might reasonably take in order to prevent their tool from being used for copyright infringement, but that would be positive action, not neutrality. So my question is, can you can demonstrate where Grokster has taken positive action to endorse piracy?
Admittedly, our legal system does, at times, require that people take positive action to prevent crime, but the threshold for that is usually high, and the consequences are usually life-and-death.
You have a point, however I would still say that guns are *essentially* weapons. To say a gun is only a weapon when it's fired at a living thing is a little like saying a chair is only a piece of furniture when someone is sitting in it. Yes, that is when it is actively being used for its designed purpose, however, the fact that it's designed purpose is to be a weapon or piece of furniture is not irrelevant.
The truth is, anything *can be* a weapon if it's used in an attack. Anything can be a piece of furniture if you sit on it. Some things lend themselves easily toward being different things. Kitchen knives, basball bats, crow bars, and such-- they all make good weapons, but I wouldn't say they're *essentially* weapons, since they can be and are frequently used otherwise. In fact, use as a weapon is not the primary purpose for which these items were designed. Guns, on the other hand, don't lend themselves towards other purposes. Even if you're using a gun as "decoration" (the most passive purpose I can think of), the purpose of using such a thing for decorative purposes is usually to evoke a militant aesthetic, which is to say that its worth as a decoration comes from the fact that it's a weapon.
Ok, back to the point, which is that P2P networking (of which the internet as a whole is an example) is more of the class of things like kitchen knives than guns (in the context of this discussion). P2P networking is not *essentially* grounds for copyright violations, even though it makes quite a nice tool for that purpose.
Guns are still essentially weapons. Saying "Guns aren't only used as weapons, because there's competitive shooting!" is kind of like saying, "cars aren't only used as a form of transport, because there's auto-racing!" Which is to say, even cars in auto races are transporting people, but they don't go anywhere because the point isn't the destination but a competition of the skill of using the transport. Likewise, in competitive shooting, guns are still being used as weapons, but you're competing at who's better at using the weapon.
None of this is to say that guns are bad or should be outlawed. But think about it, it's essentially different to say, "Knives aren't only weapons, since they can also be used in weapon training and weapon competition," versus saying, "Knives aren't only weapons, since they're also cooking instruments."
The non-murdering uses of a gun: Warning Shots- warning that you're going to murder Target Practice- practicing murder Long-Term Loans from Financial Institutions- threatening murder Track & Field- competing at murdering skills Happiness (if warm)- warmth come from emptying the gun into your ex-wife Cracking Walnuts at 100 yards- murdering poor, innocent walnuts Network Administration (see LART, definition of)- they'll have a different attitude if you murder them
Just for curiosity, which are the non-murdering uses for a gun?
Opening cans of beans? Noisemakers at a party?
Just kidding, but that's why I didn't choose guns for my analogy. Guns are built to be weapons, i.e. hurt people and animals. That's what they're constructed for, and though I suppose you could use one for a door-stop, it's not a sensible use. Knives, on the other hand can easily be used as weapons, and the difference between a knife constructed to be a weapon and a utility knife or a steak knife is relatively minor, and they can often be used interchangeably.
So P2P applications are more comparable to knives. The same way a knife will cut through rope, steak, or human skin just the same, P2P applications will distribute infringing material and free material just the same.
The problem for MGM is that Grokster, along with other file sharing services, doesn't actually infringe on anything, although they do provide an avenue for doing so. Using MGM's thinking, the Internet as a whole should also be eliminated since it can be used to distribute material illegally.
Yeah, I don't think destroying the internet as we know it is opposed to their desires. I suspect many executives in large media companies would be happy if setting up web/ftp servers required a license or wading through tons of red tape-- something expensive and difficult enough to the point of preventing individuals from posting anything, and eliminating the Internet as we know it today. What I'm saying is, they like the internet as a one-way broadcast, where they're still the source of the information and you're a passive recipient.
That's the way current radio/TV broadcasting and medium-based distribution works, and that's the model that keeps them in a semi-monopoly over the information and entertainment you have access to. If they can turn the Internet into this model, they will.
P2P has its legitimate uses as does any other object. P2P has its illegal uses as does any other tool. Obviously the lawyers would have a field day if P2P was banned...
I've just been arguing this elsewhere. Claiming P2P networks should be banned because it's used to share copyrighted works is like claiming that HTTP should be banned because web pages are used to slander people, or that knives should be outlawed because knives are used for stabbings. And it doesn't end there, screwdrivers and pencils can be used for stabbings, hammers can be used for bashing people's heads in, and cars can be used for running people over.
However, the designs of all of these tools are morally/ethically/legally neutral, as is the case with tools in general. Moreover, the internet is inherently a P2P system. There really isn't an inherent difference between "client" and "server", nor should there be. Because of this, I'm not sure how lawmakers/judges intend to draw a conclusive line between P2P networks and other network traffic, effectively censoring one protocol without destroying the Internet in general.
Actually, Seinfield was cancelled because they couldn't afford to pay the actors for another season. Same with Friends.
Sort of. Bottom line was, the actors didn't really want to do the show anymore. In each case, the actors stuck around a couple seasons longer than they wanted to because the money was so good, so insofar as the actors might have continued on if he were offered a billion dollars an episode, it could be said that "they couldn't afford to pay the actors". However, with the example of Seinfeld, the larger issue was that Seinfeld was very vocal about not wanting to do the show anymore, wanting to end it before they ruined the show, and he didn't need the money, so it's not clear that any amount of money would have gotten him to continue any longer.
Right, except the post you were responding to was specifically referring to using Napster to download copyrighted music. Nowhere did I see it said or even implied that p2p is inherently bad. So your post was a kneejerk reaction to a perceived slight at best.
...except that I wasn't responding to the part of the post referring to using Napster to download copyrighted music. Please review the conversation if you're confused, but my entire point in bringing up p2p was to point out that the big media companies like to paint it as being merely an evil tool for "theft" whereas the technology itself is neutral. The fact that you continually bring the conversation back to copyright violations, as though the association is necessary, indicates to me that you're missing the point entirely.
To clarify, I don't believe that all aspects of the "record industry" are going away. For example, regardless of whether or not there are traditional "record companies", there will be marketing companies and ad agencies. However, much of the strangle-hold traditional record companies have over the music we hear was based on the fact that you needed a whole lot of capital to cut a record. Or, more to the point, to cut millions of records and get them into stores was too expensive to individuals to handle.
Of course I agree there will still be businesses whose job it is to promote musicians. Of course you will still need people operating recording studios. Though, there is some room between a "garage" studio set up by a teenager using his home PC and the mic that came with it and the big record company studio.
However, the business model where these couple of companies control our cultural landscape because they're the only ones who can afford to distribute the records isn't necessary when "distributing the records" doesn't cost anything. The model where these couple companies control the cultural landscape because of their terrific marketing isn't really necessary, except insofar as you believe they need to be controlling our cultural landscape. The degree to which they keep there current business model will lie dominantly on how well they continue to steer our culture towards what they're selling, continue to steer the artists towards selling themselves through the big record companies, and continue to steer us all away form alternative distribution methods.
Sure, it really stinks when someone infringes on your copyright. It still doesn't make it "theft". Sorry. That you "feel like you've had something stolen" still doesn't make it theft.
And there's a difference between saying, "the Mona Lisa is only worth the canvas it's on and the paint that was used to make it," and saying that "viewing the Mona Lisa without permission is not 'theft'." Yes, the actual painting is worth quite a lot, as a *physical object*. Yes, you might be inspired by it, and that inspiration might be worth quite a lot. However, do I "steal" that inspiration from you by enjoying the view myself? If I paint an exact duplicate of the Mona Lisa, is that the same action as stealing the actual painting?
Nowhere have I claimed that "intellectual property" is useless, nor have I claimed that people should feel fine about copyright infringement. However, regardless of how you *feel*, copyright infringement is not the same action as theft. Even if it's wrong, nothing is stolen. (note that there are many things that are wrong and illegal without being theft.)
And yes, if you mean to say that saying, "there's nothing inherently wrong with p2p" is equivalent to saying, "Copyright infringement is a-ok," then you're the one "spewing FUD, now." There is no inherent connection between P2P networks and "piracy", nor between FTP and "copyright infringement", nor between websites and "slander". All of these things are morally neutral tools, sometimes used for purposes we admire, and sometimes used for disgusting purposes. However, decentralized data networks threatens the strength of big-media by making them unnecessary (or at least less necessary), and there have been many instances where these big companies have tried to paint the technology *itself* as immoral. And that, my friend, is what I was calling FUD.
Technically, the government hasn't *taken* things into the public domain unless it's pre-1923. However, you can put your work into the public domain by granting a "license" for anyone to do whatever they want with it.
You can spew crap about how evil the recording empire is, etc. etc. but at the end of the day, sharing copyrighted works is theft.
No, theft is "theft". Distributing copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder is "copyright infringement". And not all music distributed on p2p is even copyright infringement. Yes, in fact, some recordings are public domain, and some are posted on p2p networks by the musicians themselves.
You can spew all the FUD about how inherently evil p2p networks are, but at the end of the day, p2p networks are morally neutral.
...Is this simply a case of music labels being greedy?...
Not simply a case of greed. Record labels don't *want* online distribution methods to work. Sure, it saves them money. Whereas packaging and shipping used to cut into the price of a CD, no money needs to be spent to produce more copies of an digital/medium-less album.
However, the fact that iTMS is working means that people aren't buying CDs, which is an indicator that the "music industry" is obsolete. The fact is, you can produce an album on your own and get it on iTMS, use internet/viral marketing for your promotion, and bypass major record labels altogether. We don't need them and there business model anymore, and they know it, but they don't want you to know it.
Their big hope is to convince everyone that p2p sharing is immoral and online music stores are too expensive-- it would cost more than a CD and you don't even get a lossless copy or the medium or liner notes or anything. As long as they can scare us into sticking with medium-based distribution models, they still have a business.
So what I'm suggesting is, this raising of prices is just sabotage.
If it bothers you so much - go to Mount Vernon Virginia and review Washington's records yourself, or visit the national archives.
Um... that doesn't really address the issue I was raising. Even those records, in theory, could be wrong. My post was meant to explain that we don't have any absolute verification of information, but we only have sources to which we attribute a certain level of trust, depending on our needs and purposes. Not just depending on the "importance" of the information, but on the *purpose* for which the information is required.
So what I can't figure out is, are you meaning to argue with me or agree with me?
There is simply no justification for 'public schools' these days: they exist to keep teachers and bureaucrats in cushy, well-paid jobs...
That's not exactly how I'd describe being a public high-school teacher (cushy and well-paid?).
...not to teach anyone anything (other than to turn up on time and do what they're told, like good little corporate drones whose jobs will be outsourced at the first opportunity to cheaper corporate drones abroad).
"to be drones" is exactly what our public education system is designed to do: fill kids heads with so much trivia masquerading as "knowledge" that they don't see the value in learning any more, so much relativism that they'll settle with the simplest answer anyone gives, and so much "self-esteem" that they don't believe they need to know anything. They get to be highly-suggestive ignorant adults who are satisfied with a ho-hum existence and wouldn't know how to rock the boat if it ever occurred to them to try. It was set up that way to create a complacent citizenry that could be herded like cattle.
(Yes, I'm meaning to exaggerate, but there's some truth to it)
Oh, I've known plenty who are given to getting in arguments where they're more interested in "winning" than coming to the right answer, and who would go through dishonest means to ensure a victory.
However, the problem I'm talking about doesn't *require* much in the way of dishonesty. If you think of an example that would be less cut-and-dry then Washington's birthday, where there are two highly divided camps who disagree on even the facts of "what happened", it's far easier to see where the problem comes in. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Washington's birthday was a point of contention and controversy. Let's say I'm arguing with you about it on/., and you cite the wikipedia as back up (which many people on/. seem to feel that agreement from wiki amounts to certification of "rightness"). In the time it takes you to post your comment and for me to read it, someone who is on my side of the argument intervenes and changes it to what he believes is the correct answer, not because of our argument, but he's reviewing the page and comes across what he believes to be "false" information. By the time I click the link, now I'm officially "right" because wiki says so.
What I'm saying is, for someone who's just ignorant, wiki can be informative. For that purpose, it's generally a trustworthy enough source. However, in matters where there is a disagreement, that disagreement can easily exhibit itself in the editing and re-editing of wiki pages. Even (or perhaps especially) when neither side knows what they're talking about. Because of this fact, I remain unconvinced by slashdotters who pull the old, "See! I'm right! Wikipedia says so!"
Then again, I've come across situations where someone has said, "See! I'm right because this expert says so!" and found that some expert did, in fact, say so, and the expert was generally considered an "expert", but the expert happened to be wrong. Which just brings me back to my original point of saying there are always "trust" issues with information.
As a ratio of Apple's target customers, practically nobody plays computer games.
The only way in which that might be true is if you limit Apple's "target customers" to mean their "current customers", and then I would only say it's true that many/most of Apple's current customers don't play a lot of games on their Apples, and that only because there aren't loads of computer games for OSX.
However, insofar as Apple's "target customers" are everyone (because you can't honestly tell me that Apple wouldn't be happy with the extra business), then I think many of their target users do like to play computer games, and many of those target customers who aren't buying Macs aren't buying them because of the lack of games.
I don't buy that Apple will buy Tivo, but I can see them creating a Tivo-like device with these abilities:
Unless they were going to use a modified TiVO to act like a video airport-express to stream video to the TV. At least that was the first thing I thought when I heard the rumor about Apple buying TiVO. It's easier and faster to buy existing tech and modify it for your purposes than to create from scratch, and sometimes cheaper, too.
Peer review is the basis of all of the scientific publications and journals today. It is accepted as a well functioning method and works pretty well though you can find counterexamples from time to time.
Sure, but that doesn't really get around the problem I'm speaking of. It's still relying on an authority that can be either mistaken or deceiving: other scientists. It's just that other scientists are considered to have a good level/sort of trust for the purpose of that information, which is further scientific study. So, if you were trying to offer a "solution" to the issue I was putting forth (which I'm not sure you were) then I don't believe you've succeeded.
Yet, now thinking that it might be a good idea to generate an free "expert" registration system and tag articles according to their subjects. Each expert community can then mod each other a la slashdot + value of contributions etc. Then, experts would have an additional say on the articles related to their subjects. Just an idea...
I agree that something like that might be useful. I've suggested before that the wikipedia might want to think about something similar to the division between stable and unstable that you see in software development. Basically, what I would suggest is that they keep the current anything-goes model for the wikipedia as the "unstable" branch, where it would still be readily available to the public (as available as it is now). But for the purposes of creating a more trustworthy/authoritative "stable" branch, they could have an additional means of access (perhaps even accessing the same database?), where changes go through some sort of editorial process, perhaps being reviewed by *someone* with some sort of "expert" status before going live. I really don't know what sort of "editorial process" work work well, nor how "expert status" should be bestowed, but I think the general structure of a stable/unstable division would be helpful.
Even so, I think the OP who stated that "information is not a democracy" has a valid concern, which is that "truth" does not obey the majority's will. As you said, there are no all-seeing oracles. We should be careful of the conclusions reached even by a panel of experts, and so much more of the conclusions reached by a mass of laymen.
Second, I see a lot of people saying "I have a 20GB iPod -- and I swear sometimes it just NEVER plays this one song." Okay, let's assume that a 20GB iPod holds 5000 mp3 files. What's the probability that you play 5000 songs in shuffle mode, and never hear a particular song?
It's the probability that 5000 times in a row, you hear some other song -- that is, one of the 4999 other songs. Calculating, we get:
(4999/5000)^5000 = 0.3678.
Just to clarify what your saying (and I am stating the obvious), but this 37% probability you're talking about is the chance that a given song will be neglected by this random shuffle. The reason I say this is, a sloppy reader might think you were saying that this is the chance that any one of the songs will be neglected, for which 37% would be an extraordinarily low number. The chances of playing through 5000 random selections of 5000 songs and having every one of them played (not a single repeat) is tiny (and certainly not 63%).
But anyone thinking much about it should recognize that. What you're suggesting, rather, is that if you pick any given one of those 5000 songs, in a span of 5000 random plays, there's roughly a 36% chance that that particular song won't be played. Like I said, just wanted to clarify.
Unless you mixed the candies into a checkerboard pattern... which isn't random at all, now is it?
I think that was his point. A lot of people misunderstand statistics in such a way that they think a randomly generated sample should come out to be a checkerboard, when, in fact, a checkerboard pattern is very un-random (or to use a real word, ordered).
To take the classic statistical example of flipping a coin, imagine a coin so perfectly weighted that the chances of any given coin toss is 50/50. So that means, in theory, if I toss a coin twice, chances are I'll get 1 heads and 1 tails. Four times? 2 of each. Six times? 3 of each, and so on.
However, lets look at the instance of 6 tossings. What are the chances that this pattern will be maintained throughout the entire span of the six tosses? As in, what are the chances of getting either a heads-tails-heads-tails-heads-tails or tails-heads-tails-heads-tails-heads? Guess what, the chances are no better than getting 6 heads or six tails. For any number of tosses, the chances of getting an alternating pattern is equal to getting a straight/constant result.
Or look at the example of 100 tosses. Anyone will tell you that, given 100 truly random tosses, we should expect the results to be roughly 50/50. However, if you had to bet on whether the result will be *exactly* 50/50, the smart money would be on "no". In fact, the probability of the result being 49/51 one way or the other (adding the probability of 49/51 to 51/49) are better than the chances of being 50/50 exactly, so the probability of it being any combination other than 50/50 is pretty good.
But, not really understanding the statistics they are citing, people always expect that "random" means an even spread and that probability favors "the most probable result".
Slashdot Mirror
If that can be demonstrated in court, that research was done and that they've marketed this towards piracy, then it seems to me that something should be done. (IANAL, I'm just speaking about ethically) But I don't think it's fair to draw that conclusion based on, "well, ya know, just LOOK at it."
(I'm not accusing you of drawing your conclusion that way, but that's all I have to go on)
Perhaps the most important thing implicit thing they've done is left the network running when it's obvious to anybody with a brain what it's used for. If they were truly against piracy, they'd shut it down and stop making the software available until they can come out with a new version with filters or other controls.
Well, by the same reasoning, knife manufacturers know that knives are used to stab people. They don't pull their knives off the market until they can make stab-proof knives. Ok, admittedly, "stab-proof knives" sounds a bit sillier than "filtering in a P2P network". Still, in each case, it's not clear how such a thing should be accomplished, nor is it clear how effective a given implementation will be.
I would shy away from the word "usually." "contributory" and "aiding and abetting" are often applied to lots of non-life-threatening crimes and torts.
Yes, but those usually require a positive action which contributes to a crime. That's not the same as someone being charged for failing to take positive action to prevent a crime.
The definition of the object as a "gun" also seems to include precondition of use. Insofar as the object is a lump of well-formed metal sitting quietly on a table, the object is neither a gun nor a weapon, but merely a well-formed lump of metal.
Therefore, it is still valid to say that "guns are weapons", since its use as a gun (the precondition of it being a "gun") also constitutes use as a weapon. Admittedly, though, you could use it as a weapon without using it as a gun, which would be to club someone with it. However, at that point, it's a club, and not a gun, but still a weapon.
Hey.... Don't blame me, you started down this path.
Ok, then tell me, what is it about Grokster that specifically targets "pirates" as their consumer-base? Do they have something built-in which allows DRM stripping or something? Do they have CD/DVD ripping software built in? I mean, I've never used grokster, so I'm not familiar with what features it has as opposed to other P2P software. So what, exactly, makes the Grokster software makes it more useful for "piracy" than other data-sharing?
But in this case, it's clear that Grokster's founders designed the software as part of an overall plan to provide a medium that would be largely used for piracy, and to make money off of it. That's not neutral.
Compare this to somebody who designs a P2P app from the ground up to be permissions-based, or who designs a P2P app with hooks built in for filtering (as Grokster president Wayne Rosso is now doing with Mashboxx), or somebody who sets up a Torrent site and only allows torrents for content that's published under Creative Commons.
Now including filters and such are valid actions a software designer might reasonably take in order to prevent their tool from being used for copyright infringement, but that would be positive action, not neutrality. So my question is, can you can demonstrate where Grokster has taken positive action to endorse piracy?
Admittedly, our legal system does, at times, require that people take positive action to prevent crime, but the threshold for that is usually high, and the consequences are usually life-and-death.
The truth is, anything *can be* a weapon if it's used in an attack. Anything can be a piece of furniture if you sit on it. Some things lend themselves easily toward being different things. Kitchen knives, basball bats, crow bars, and such-- they all make good weapons, but I wouldn't say they're *essentially* weapons, since they can be and are frequently used otherwise. In fact, use as a weapon is not the primary purpose for which these items were designed. Guns, on the other hand, don't lend themselves towards other purposes. Even if you're using a gun as "decoration" (the most passive purpose I can think of), the purpose of using such a thing for decorative purposes is usually to evoke a militant aesthetic, which is to say that its worth as a decoration comes from the fact that it's a weapon.
Ok, back to the point, which is that P2P networking (of which the internet as a whole is an example) is more of the class of things like kitchen knives than guns (in the context of this discussion). P2P networking is not *essentially* grounds for copyright violations, even though it makes quite a nice tool for that purpose.
Nope, didn't miss the joke. It's a good joke. Clever. Just making a joke of my own.
None of this is to say that guns are bad or should be outlawed. But think about it, it's essentially different to say, "Knives aren't only weapons, since they can also be used in weapon training and weapon competition," versus saying, "Knives aren't only weapons, since they're also cooking instruments."
The non-murdering uses of a gun:
Warning Shots- warning that you're going to murder
Target Practice- practicing murder
Long-Term Loans from Financial Institutions- threatening murder
Track & Field- competing at murdering skills
Happiness (if warm)- warmth come from emptying the gun into your ex-wife
Cracking Walnuts at 100 yards- murdering poor, innocent walnuts
Network Administration (see LART, definition of)- they'll have a different attitude if you murder them
Opening cans of beans? Noisemakers at a party?
Just kidding, but that's why I didn't choose guns for my analogy. Guns are built to be weapons, i.e. hurt people and animals. That's what they're constructed for, and though I suppose you could use one for a door-stop, it's not a sensible use. Knives, on the other hand can easily be used as weapons, and the difference between a knife constructed to be a weapon and a utility knife or a steak knife is relatively minor, and they can often be used interchangeably.
So P2P applications are more comparable to knives. The same way a knife will cut through rope, steak, or human skin just the same, P2P applications will distribute infringing material and free material just the same.
Yeah, I don't think destroying the internet as we know it is opposed to their desires. I suspect many executives in large media companies would be happy if setting up web/ftp servers required a license or wading through tons of red tape-- something expensive and difficult enough to the point of preventing individuals from posting anything, and eliminating the Internet as we know it today. What I'm saying is, they like the internet as a one-way broadcast, where they're still the source of the information and you're a passive recipient.
That's the way current radio/TV broadcasting and medium-based distribution works, and that's the model that keeps them in a semi-monopoly over the information and entertainment you have access to. If they can turn the Internet into this model, they will.
I've just been arguing this elsewhere. Claiming P2P networks should be banned because it's used to share copyrighted works is like claiming that HTTP should be banned because web pages are used to slander people, or that knives should be outlawed because knives are used for stabbings. And it doesn't end there, screwdrivers and pencils can be used for stabbings, hammers can be used for bashing people's heads in, and cars can be used for running people over.
However, the designs of all of these tools are morally/ethically/legally neutral, as is the case with tools in general. Moreover, the internet is inherently a P2P system. There really isn't an inherent difference between "client" and "server", nor should there be. Because of this, I'm not sure how lawmakers/judges intend to draw a conclusive line between P2P networks and other network traffic, effectively censoring one protocol without destroying the Internet in general.
Sort of. Bottom line was, the actors didn't really want to do the show anymore. In each case, the actors stuck around a couple seasons longer than they wanted to because the money was so good, so insofar as the actors might have continued on if he were offered a billion dollars an episode, it could be said that "they couldn't afford to pay the actors". However, with the example of Seinfeld, the larger issue was that Seinfeld was very vocal about not wanting to do the show anymore, wanting to end it before they ruined the show, and he didn't need the money, so it's not clear that any amount of money would have gotten him to continue any longer.
...except that I wasn't responding to the part of the post referring to using Napster to download copyrighted music. Please review the conversation if you're confused, but my entire point in bringing up p2p was to point out that the big media companies like to paint it as being merely an evil tool for "theft" whereas the technology itself is neutral. The fact that you continually bring the conversation back to copyright violations, as though the association is necessary, indicates to me that you're missing the point entirely.
Of course I agree there will still be businesses whose job it is to promote musicians. Of course you will still need people operating recording studios. Though, there is some room between a "garage" studio set up by a teenager using his home PC and the mic that came with it and the big record company studio.
However, the business model where these couple of companies control our cultural landscape because they're the only ones who can afford to distribute the records isn't necessary when "distributing the records" doesn't cost anything. The model where these couple companies control the cultural landscape because of their terrific marketing isn't really necessary, except insofar as you believe they need to be controlling our cultural landscape. The degree to which they keep there current business model will lie dominantly on how well they continue to steer our culture towards what they're selling, continue to steer the artists towards selling themselves through the big record companies, and continue to steer us all away form alternative distribution methods.
And there's a difference between saying, "the Mona Lisa is only worth the canvas it's on and the paint that was used to make it," and saying that "viewing the Mona Lisa without permission is not 'theft'." Yes, the actual painting is worth quite a lot, as a *physical object*. Yes, you might be inspired by it, and that inspiration might be worth quite a lot. However, do I "steal" that inspiration from you by enjoying the view myself? If I paint an exact duplicate of the Mona Lisa, is that the same action as stealing the actual painting?
Nowhere have I claimed that "intellectual property" is useless, nor have I claimed that people should feel fine about copyright infringement. However, regardless of how you *feel*, copyright infringement is not the same action as theft. Even if it's wrong, nothing is stolen. (note that there are many things that are wrong and illegal without being theft.)
And yes, if you mean to say that saying, "there's nothing inherently wrong with p2p" is equivalent to saying, "Copyright infringement is a-ok," then you're the one "spewing FUD, now." There is no inherent connection between P2P networks and "piracy", nor between FTP and "copyright infringement", nor between websites and "slander". All of these things are morally neutral tools, sometimes used for purposes we admire, and sometimes used for disgusting purposes. However, decentralized data networks threatens the strength of big-media by making them unnecessary (or at least less necessary), and there have been many instances where these big companies have tried to paint the technology *itself* as immoral. And that, my friend, is what I was calling FUD.
Technically, the government hasn't *taken* things into the public domain unless it's pre-1923. However, you can put your work into the public domain by granting a "license" for anyone to do whatever they want with it.
No, theft is "theft". Distributing copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder is "copyright infringement". And not all music distributed on p2p is even copyright infringement. Yes, in fact, some recordings are public domain, and some are posted on p2p networks by the musicians themselves.
You can spew all the FUD about how inherently evil p2p networks are, but at the end of the day, p2p networks are morally neutral.
Not simply a case of greed. Record labels don't *want* online distribution methods to work. Sure, it saves them money. Whereas packaging and shipping used to cut into the price of a CD, no money needs to be spent to produce more copies of an digital/medium-less album.
However, the fact that iTMS is working means that people aren't buying CDs, which is an indicator that the "music industry" is obsolete. The fact is, you can produce an album on your own and get it on iTMS, use internet/viral marketing for your promotion, and bypass major record labels altogether. We don't need them and there business model anymore, and they know it, but they don't want you to know it.
Their big hope is to convince everyone that p2p sharing is immoral and online music stores are too expensive-- it would cost more than a CD and you don't even get a lossless copy or the medium or liner notes or anything. As long as they can scare us into sticking with medium-based distribution models, they still have a business.
So what I'm suggesting is, this raising of prices is just sabotage.
Um... that doesn't really address the issue I was raising. Even those records, in theory, could be wrong. My post was meant to explain that we don't have any absolute verification of information, but we only have sources to which we attribute a certain level of trust, depending on our needs and purposes. Not just depending on the "importance" of the information, but on the *purpose* for which the information is required.
So what I can't figure out is, are you meaning to argue with me or agree with me?
That's not exactly how I'd describe being a public high-school teacher (cushy and well-paid?).
"to be drones" is exactly what our public education system is designed to do: fill kids heads with so much trivia masquerading as "knowledge" that they don't see the value in learning any more, so much relativism that they'll settle with the simplest answer anyone gives, and so much "self-esteem" that they don't believe they need to know anything. They get to be highly-suggestive ignorant adults who are satisfied with a ho-hum existence and wouldn't know how to rock the boat if it ever occurred to them to try. It was set up that way to create a complacent citizenry that could be herded like cattle.
(Yes, I'm meaning to exaggerate, but there's some truth to it)
However, the problem I'm talking about doesn't *require* much in the way of dishonesty. If you think of an example that would be less cut-and-dry then Washington's birthday, where there are two highly divided camps who disagree on even the facts of "what happened", it's far easier to see where the problem comes in. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Washington's birthday was a point of contention and controversy. Let's say I'm arguing with you about it on /., and you cite the wikipedia as back up (which many people on /. seem to feel that agreement from wiki amounts to certification of "rightness"). In the time it takes you to post your comment and for me to read it, someone who is on my side of the argument intervenes and changes it to what he believes is the correct answer, not because of our argument, but he's reviewing the page and comes across what he believes to be "false" information. By the time I click the link, now I'm officially "right" because wiki says so.
What I'm saying is, for someone who's just ignorant, wiki can be informative. For that purpose, it's generally a trustworthy enough source. However, in matters where there is a disagreement, that disagreement can easily exhibit itself in the editing and re-editing of wiki pages. Even (or perhaps especially) when neither side knows what they're talking about. Because of this fact, I remain unconvinced by slashdotters who pull the old, "See! I'm right! Wikipedia says so!"
Then again, I've come across situations where someone has said, "See! I'm right because this expert says so!" and found that some expert did, in fact, say so, and the expert was generally considered an "expert", but the expert happened to be wrong. Which just brings me back to my original point of saying there are always "trust" issues with information.
The only way in which that might be true is if you limit Apple's "target customers" to mean their "current customers", and then I would only say it's true that many/most of Apple's current customers don't play a lot of games on their Apples, and that only because there aren't loads of computer games for OSX.
However, insofar as Apple's "target customers" are everyone (because you can't honestly tell me that Apple wouldn't be happy with the extra business), then I think many of their target users do like to play computer games, and many of those target customers who aren't buying Macs aren't buying them because of the lack of games.
Unless they were going to use a modified TiVO to act like a video airport-express to stream video to the TV. At least that was the first thing I thought when I heard the rumor about Apple buying TiVO. It's easier and faster to buy existing tech and modify it for your purposes than to create from scratch, and sometimes cheaper, too.
Sure, but that doesn't really get around the problem I'm speaking of. It's still relying on an authority that can be either mistaken or deceiving: other scientists. It's just that other scientists are considered to have a good level/sort of trust for the purpose of that information, which is further scientific study. So, if you were trying to offer a "solution" to the issue I was putting forth (which I'm not sure you were) then I don't believe you've succeeded.
Yet, now thinking that it might be a good idea to generate an free "expert" registration system and tag articles according to their subjects. Each expert community can then mod each other a la slashdot + value of contributions etc. Then, experts would have an additional say on the articles related to their subjects. Just an idea...
I agree that something like that might be useful. I've suggested before that the wikipedia might want to think about something similar to the division between stable and unstable that you see in software development. Basically, what I would suggest is that they keep the current anything-goes model for the wikipedia as the "unstable" branch, where it would still be readily available to the public (as available as it is now). But for the purposes of creating a more trustworthy/authoritative "stable" branch, they could have an additional means of access (perhaps even accessing the same database?), where changes go through some sort of editorial process, perhaps being reviewed by *someone* with some sort of "expert" status before going live. I really don't know what sort of "editorial process" work work well, nor how "expert status" should be bestowed, but I think the general structure of a stable/unstable division would be helpful.
Even so, I think the OP who stated that "information is not a democracy" has a valid concern, which is that "truth" does not obey the majority's will. As you said, there are no all-seeing oracles. We should be careful of the conclusions reached even by a panel of experts, and so much more of the conclusions reached by a mass of laymen.
It's the probability that 5000 times in a row, you hear some other song -- that is, one of the 4999 other songs. Calculating, we get:
(4999/5000)^5000 = 0.3678.
Just to clarify what your saying (and I am stating the obvious), but this 37% probability you're talking about is the chance that a given song will be neglected by this random shuffle. The reason I say this is, a sloppy reader might think you were saying that this is the chance that any one of the songs will be neglected, for which 37% would be an extraordinarily low number. The chances of playing through 5000 random selections of 5000 songs and having every one of them played (not a single repeat) is tiny (and certainly not 63%).
But anyone thinking much about it should recognize that. What you're suggesting, rather, is that if you pick any given one of those 5000 songs, in a span of 5000 random plays, there's roughly a 36% chance that that particular song won't be played. Like I said, just wanted to clarify.
I think that was his point. A lot of people misunderstand statistics in such a way that they think a randomly generated sample should come out to be a checkerboard, when, in fact, a checkerboard pattern is very un-random (or to use a real word, ordered).
To take the classic statistical example of flipping a coin, imagine a coin so perfectly weighted that the chances of any given coin toss is 50/50. So that means, in theory, if I toss a coin twice, chances are I'll get 1 heads and 1 tails. Four times? 2 of each. Six times? 3 of each, and so on.
However, lets look at the instance of 6 tossings. What are the chances that this pattern will be maintained throughout the entire span of the six tosses? As in, what are the chances of getting either a heads-tails-heads-tails-heads-tails or tails-heads-tails-heads-tails-heads? Guess what, the chances are no better than getting 6 heads or six tails. For any number of tosses, the chances of getting an alternating pattern is equal to getting a straight/constant result.
Or look at the example of 100 tosses. Anyone will tell you that, given 100 truly random tosses, we should expect the results to be roughly 50/50. However, if you had to bet on whether the result will be *exactly* 50/50, the smart money would be on "no". In fact, the probability of the result being 49/51 one way or the other (adding the probability of 49/51 to 51/49) are better than the chances of being 50/50 exactly, so the probability of it being any combination other than 50/50 is pretty good.
But, not really understanding the statistics they are citing, people always expect that "random" means an even spread and that probability favors "the most probable result".