while I agree there is a lot of grandstanding I am guessing they are really talking about quality of service. Right now I think they are forced to give google consistent service for a capped price. What they want to do is make google pay depending on how good of service google wants from their network. It is very similar to business calls. You can pay extra so that your calls never drop on a network as a business.
I think this is what they are really talking about. In the same way I have to deal with my internet connection not always being great, google would have to do the same unless they paid extra.
Google would be equally free to set up a deal with another ISP and leverage pre-existing deals with said new ISP and all other ISP's (through peer point agreements). I would say as long as there is competition in the market(enough competition) it is fine. But I don't feel there is much competition when it comes to internet connections.
but you know, it is so much easier to not fight something when it doesn't directly effect you. people do it all the time. and whether it is by that line or by not doing anything, it is the same.
what I hate even more is when people talk about injustices they see and then won't do anything about it.
you play for escape, I play for something to do wtih my friends that live hundreds of miles away. I'm now about to graduate and then will have more of a reason to do it.
Just because you play the game to escape your life doesn't mean everyone does. I play because it's something fun to do with friends and to meet new people(yeah, I mean the real people, not their character). It's an amazing social environment. Sometimes, I just go online to talk with friends and do stupid things like run around rather than go on raids/instances/ whatever. And it turns out that one nice way to meet people with whom you would have a good chance of getting along with is to have common interests or hobbies. It's just how a social network works.
Blizzard can make it an ultra restrictive game which lacks a large dynamic to personal expression but they don't seem to want to do it. I agree that a lot of this discussion shouldn't occur on public chats in the towns or whatever, but it shouldn't be silenced.
actually, you're nice hypothetical question given by social economists is interesting because it depends on how much risk you are willing to take. personally, I would want one where benefits are more concentrated and take my risk. and if you told me I had a 75% chance, I'd take it.
a big hole in your argument is that unconscious, sleeping, or even people in many types of comas are thinking individuals. There are been people who remember things said to them in the room while in a coma. Dreams are instances of enhanced brain activity(and I've gotten an idea from one or two). unconscious people are in that same realm.
so your examples are flawed but I Get your point so I'm not too worried about that. I would say this: As long as society is set up to where we are willing to kill those we don't have close relations with to improve our lives, abortion is perfectly ethical and legal. I am referring to war mostly. It is still seen by many(including many pro-lifers) as acceptable killing of life to protect the conforts of your own life. And these are just to protect conforts(i.e. civil rights, freedoms). So if you killing another perosn to protect yourself from a hypothetical bomb some time in the future is alright, why is it wrong for me to kill someone to protect myself from a life of misery taking care of this person?
I really just want consistency in our laws, nothing more or less. We just don't have it at all.
prison hasn't been a place for rehab for years. according to this judge in the NY times , he says few judges believe in the prison system as a place for rehab.
but the real question as to whether or not this is civil disobediance will be how they act from here on out. If they were doing this because they hated the copyright system, then they now have an international forum to say this and defend the position as a way to fight something they didn't believe in. of course, I highly doubt that is why they did it and will be willing to bet their defense will be some BS which makes no other point other than "hey, I pirated warez and want out now because I'm real sorry".
of course, remember what you imply by your response. you assume that every person who pirates software would never have bought it if it weren't available for download. I"m betting the truth is somehwere in between. But the fine doesn't have anything to do with the book value of those items. The fine they could face is up to a quarter million per title, which is probably something like one hundred million dollars if they have been pirating even a small amount of stuff(400 titles).
The interesting question to ask is "if there were no pirates, would companies have ever started puting security measures on there software". i.e. if the only copying that ever happened was the small scale, let my friends check it out type, would they have taken the time to put software protections schemes in place? no one really knows, but it would seem from my point of view that the answer is no. Every security measure has been taken to prevent copying on a large scale.
it's a bit different. what if you create a new species(breed, whatever) of plant that has some nice property of having the exact taste of habaneros and are only as spicy as, say... banana peppers. This is not trivial. it takes several thousand attempts at interbreeding to finally get what is essentially a new plant. Is your work in that field patentable? remember the steps to get there are not obvious and I would call the pepper significantly novel in the world of cooking.
well, then you can patent it. This is what I believe most people are talking about when they say they are patenting genes. what you are patenting is the end result of a lot of genetic engineering, which can usually be reduced to changes in just a few genes.
Of course, I'm not the grand parent so I can't say for sure. But you cannot patent a gene that is just naturally occurring. usually it has to do with creating your own.
1) google is not a Chinese company and therefore, does not have to follow this law to continue to exist. There is a big difference between the two cases and in this case, google's right to exist is not being threatened.
2) while you try to make reference to the google case here in the US, they are world's apart. The most glaring difference is that this is not a censorship issue. In the US, google is being asked to hand over anonymous search results that people have gotten(ie. no tracable information) so the government can show that regular internet filters are ineffective because innapropriate material gets through on seemingly appropriate search terms. Furthermore, google is not trying to defend your privacy by not complying. They have vociferously announced that there goal is to protect their trade secrets(caching programs and the like). The don't believe privacy is an issue in this case. only once has it been mentioned and they wrote it off as without basis.
so you should feel safe in knowing you haven't lost any privacy.
of course, you made the real point. it is all a question of personal morals and it shows that when google said they would do no evil, they just had a different definition of evil than most people.
my argument is not about the way you have to handle it to survive if you are inside of a country(ie. have no choice if you want to do any business at all). I Highly doubt hte brazilian govt would have even let this newspaper print articles if they were to be sent abroad only. The point is that no company has yet been willing to stand up to China when they are the ones making the autonomous choice to enter that country. This is not a case of a person trying to change the govt. with incredible risk to themselves. This is just a case of someone caving in to demands(as everyone else has)in order to open up more markets. I don't want to sound like I am only take offense to what google is doing because litterally noone else is willing to stand up and say I will not do business with a person thas lacks any ethics or morals(I know, both those words are all about perspective, but there are some limitations that a vast majority of the world have come to accept).
The WTO and almost every western govt. looking to grow their economy is also a part of this problem. But who knows. It may be that free trade with China is the best way to change the country. It is already privatizing many sectors(including the hallmark, banking). So there is a good chance that just a larger western economic presence could lead to faster change. But as history has shown, The chinese govt. is more htan willing to cash in on every bit of economic gain while just being more repressive to its own people. of course, I am american, and historically that has stood for trampling over anyone's rights in the name of profit. So I guess I should just accept it and move on.
so in other words, google wanted money and decided that because everyone else was being unethical, it wouldn't matter if they did? what is this, did google forget what it learned in kindergarten? you know, the whole discussion about doing what is right even if everyone else is wrong and standing by it.
Every little bit of effort has the potential to further free speech. The biggest name right now in the industry saying no to China might incite others to do the same and that means something. Someone has to have the balls to be the leader, and google is obviously not it. But that isn't a big deal to me. No matter how big a person(or corp) talks, not everyone is cut out to really take the sacrifices necessarry to stand by their values.
PS> I've been up for 20 hours now, spelling and grammar are no longer important matters.
but they do, don't they? as I am reading hte article, the chinese government is calling for censorship on google.cn. before today, there was no censorship on going to google.com and using the chinese language version. So in essense, purely to make there product easier to consume, they have decided to censor.
I could be wrong in my reading, but if I am correct, then google is just as in love with money as any other corporation and their slogan is complete bullshit.
to clarify: at least your first link was to one with problems concerning the entire line of athlon processors. a lot of those problems are specific to one of 10 different processors that paper covers. I would bet that tehre aren't that many in any given athlon.
funny you say that. was at home and watching TV for the first time in ages and what do I see: MTV following the lives as several pro gamers, none of who were Fatal1ty. It was kind of interesting to see these people who want/are pro gamers. It just looked horribly boring from my perspective but then again, I don't play games much any more.
it is probalby the fact that one is both intensely physical and mental while the other is mainly mental and reaction time. I think its great that people can get together and play games and make money and compete, but it isn't for me simply because in my mind, these new games always lack the physical aspect that traditional sports have. It's the same reason I don't enjoy watching chess(but I can look at it after the fact for info about why certain moves are good).
of course, as you said, it is my opinion. But watching Polamalu read a QB's mind and sprint across the field to get the interception has that added piece of being physically damn near superhuman. Seeing a video game player read another player's movements and then just move hte mouse there lacks that little bit. Of course, computer games are evolving every single year and I might be eating these words in a very short time and become one of those spectators.
I call bullshit. every other time in history passive resistance was done out in the open to show that people were willing to fully take whatever consequences people would throw at them because they had the strength of will to do so. just breaking the law and trying to hide so you don't face them just makes a regular criminal. Actually trying to effect change in laws comes with sacrifice. The companies are putting their shareholder's money on the line to get laws changed in their favor. so you have two options, fight them on the same terms or open and directed civil disobedience. rather, you just give them more ammunition because you lack the fortitude to stand by your principles. so give me an example where the resistance wasn't open and fought by sacrifice. You may try to use the boston Tea party as an example, but it would be a terrible use of it because everyone(those who made decisions) knew it was the colonists who did it and further, it was one part of a very open struggle. Unlike yourself(if you are one of these people), those colonists openly had to defy the authority. Do you think that taxes were some form of anonymous payment that they were refusing(though there aren't many examples of people in that time refusing to pay taxes).
as to the software analogy: As you have pointed out differences, I will extend your same argument. hwo about an end to restrictions with non-commercial use of software? or even better, an end to any restrictions on non-commercial software whose output is directly an input of a person? Take a video game for example. Similar to a DVD, it requires a machine that reads it's code. That may be a computer or a video game system, but the output is the same(working emulators prove a great deal of software is not restricted to one medium). Why shouldn't non-commercial legal restrictions be removed from that? if fits your definition.
Of course, you can make other arguments, but in the end, most software is in a very similar class to movies/music. A great deal is made with the purpose of marketting it to a non-commercial entity. Most music, especially today, falls into that category. Just because for the first time today there are multiple platforms that can play the same music doesn't make it different from software. Especially since a great deal of software can be run on multiple platforms.
of course, I wonder why you think an end to legal restrictions isn't an end to copyright but I realize your position now. There would still be a commercial sector that would have to pay(for those people who make copyrighted material and expect the commercial sectors to use it).
no, they weren't coerced. The artists decided that they wanted access to the massive marketting abilities of hte big labels and thought the price was worth it. Few people can afford to market themselves on a large scale and some want to be more than a local underground band for good.
I actually now know 4 bands personally that have been approached to sign with the labels. 3 decided to not do it and one broke up before anything came of it. Those that rejected it did so because they thought it wasn't a lucrative enough deal and that they coudl do better on their own. Another classic example of a person holding out for a better contract is MC Hammer, who at first rejected the label offer because he saw he could make a great deal more selling tapes out of his trunk after he performed. So don't go giving a BS sob story; if you want to blame anyone for the contracts, blame those artists who are greedy enough for hte big bucks to sign away their fans. The recording label is like drugs. It would go away if artists had the strength of will to make it happen.
Or do you think that only the big labels are interested in the profit and the artist only cares about the music? because then you are just deluded. Yes, they care about hte music, but money is a big factor in their decisions. Or do you think it is just a coincidence that those artists who have become successful see piracy as a bad thing(not all, but a great many of them).
yes. but as I have said on other posts before, if you like an artist that chose to sign with the big labels, there is no reason to not follow the law and buy their CD(if it is worth the money to you, it isn't to me).
actually, most of the time, they are. remember, most Trustee's earn a raw percent on the value they add to the portfolio they are managing. It just happens to be that a lot of money that used to have different risk profiles will all start tohave the same risk profile. Not good or bad, just different.
I'm actually checking now with an old professor of mine. I thought hte difference witih pixar was that he was the majority share holder.
in either case, I dont' think disney will vote him in as CEO. but there are a multitude of reasons for that.
doubt it. I"m pretty sure there are quite a few laws against him holding the CEO position at both companies. Now, there is the possibility of him sitting on the board of disney and maybe heading it. but that would be frowned upon by a lot of people. Shareholders don't like to have the same chairman for companies that are in the same space.
Re:Ok, what happens to Renderman now?
on
Disney Buys Pixar
·
· Score: 1
you must be a little bit daft to think a bug's life was a retelling of the Seven Samurai. it was a retelling of one of Aesops Fable's and followed a line of a previous movie that spoofed the seven samurai plot. If anything, in a round about way it was poking fun at the plot of Seven Samurai(and a nod to the value of that story). but a Bug's Life lacks any of the seriousness of Seven Samurai. It is not meant to make you think about the conundrum of the way the hero ant lives his life.
of course, as to its value, I don't know. I say it once 8 years ago and haven't seen it since. according to Woody Allen, the real value of a movie is how much money it makes. So I guess it was pretty damn good.
My point about pricing was not whether or not the market would support it. My point was, just becuase someone charges a lot for something you like doesn't make it alright to break the law(especially if you believe copyright law should be respected).
If an artists charges 20 dollars for a CD and nobody buys it, too bad. That poor fuck wasn't good enough. But a prime example is a band that I love. I was introduced to the eagles when I was in middle school and loved the music. But I never bought a CD because I thought the 40 dollars 2-CD set was too much. It didn't mean I went home and started downloading the CDs left and right. I went without it. After a time, I was able to find a CD at a reasonable price(online) and bought it.
I still feel my sotware analogy is viable. Engineers had a magical century where they could make things on these new fangled machines called computers and freely copy and distribute it. But it is over. People now have near infinite storage and can copy their own versions of software. Obviously, those programmers who expect to just sit around and collect royalties on something they did years ago are just out of date. It is the same argument because of course, if we got rid of charging for software, it would still be needed and therefore, boutique software firms would spring up. It would just be different than the program once, collect earnings till infinity model we have now.
I Don't actually support such a model, but it could exist even if we got rid of all copyright on software code as well. It happens to be a lot of people make music to earn money off of it by distribution to non-commercial entities(just like software). IF you don't like the law, work to change it. I hate when people compare themselves to the civil rights movement because it isn't the passive resistance. It is hiding in a corner so no one can see you and making yourself believe you are resisting the "man". but that is a different complaint entirely.
record companies start taking legal action against anyone violating their copyrights
you call them the wrongest pieces of shit on the planet who you will not fund
you then use this decision to validate your breaking of the law
So, to clarify my eariler points, my first question was rhetorical. I guess that just flew over your head. Or were you trying to me me sound stupid by feigning ignorance of that? I'm guessing the latter.
and just so you know, CD's haven't stayed the same price(in real terms, the only terms that matter). Equivalently, The 15-18 dollar CD you can buy today is equal to the same CD costing about 10 dollars back in 1985. So I guess prices have cut about in half as back then, CD's were over 20 dollars. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to realize this. It happens when you blindly complain about something in order to justify what you are doing.
The real question is why can't you admit you just prefer to get the music you like for free(illegally) rather than paying for it. You get pissed about how the free market works and then decide to break the law. There are loads of bands that put music up for free but you seem to have one goal, to get pissed off at other people who are willing to pay that much and keep the price of CD's up. Of course, a great example of the market working was the decrease in CD prices that have occurred in the last 2 years. What price would be good for you? 10 dollars(Itunes fills that need)? 5 dollars? The ten cents you seem to believe is the only expense a record company has?
nice use of the numbers. ofo course, you forget to mention that almost half of the money from downloaded music is towards ring tones(and they are a lot cheaper, so they most likely make up a much larger percent of all legal music downloads).
and of course, there is no reason why my buying an Ipod would have any effect on my downloading of music. Itunes is either good for you or it sucks(personally I hate it, a terrible program that doesn't run well). of course, if I ever get my hands on the 7000 or so songs my friend has collected, I might buy an Ipod so I cna listen to any of it at any time. I don't know anything about a real distribution, but I do know that 10/12 ipods I Have seen bought were purchased to hold a massive collection of illegal music. 1 was bought by a person who doesn't believe in downloading illegally. the other is split with about 50% being illegal.
So really, what you have done is taken a bunch of numbers and warped them to imply something you know nothing about. you have no idea how much of itunes is representing lost brick and mortar sales(remember, 15 bucks for hte album or 10 on itunes which you can get at home). but, like any good argument full of holes, you sweep the obvious under the rug.
So why do you really think the number of illegal file sharing has stayed the say? I"ll give you a hint: you have no fucking clue why and are just making an assumption. and you know what happens when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you and umption(brownie points if you know the movie with that line).
I mean, according to the british, George Washington was a terrorist. So we should always keep our perspective. history is written by the current winner.
Slashdot Mirror
while I agree there is a lot of grandstanding I am guessing they are really talking about quality of service. Right now I think they are forced to give google consistent service for a capped price. What they want to do is make google pay depending on how good of service google wants from their network. It is very similar to business calls. You can pay extra so that your calls never drop on a network as a business.
I think this is what they are really talking about. In the same way I have to deal with my internet connection not always being great, google would have to do the same unless they paid extra.
Google would be equally free to set up a deal with another ISP and leverage pre-existing deals with said new ISP and all other ISP's (through peer point agreements). I would say as long as there is competition in the market(enough competition) it is fine. But I don't feel there is much competition when it comes to internet connections.
but you know, it is so much easier to not fight something when it doesn't directly effect you. people do it all the time. and whether it is by that line or by not doing anything, it is the same.
what I hate even more is when people talk about injustices they see and then won't do anything about it.
you play for escape, I play for something to do wtih my friends that live hundreds of miles away. I'm now about to graduate and then will have more of a reason to do it.
/instances/ whatever. And it turns out that one nice way to meet people with whom you would have a good chance of getting along with is to have common interests or hobbies. It's just how a social network works.
Just because you play the game to escape your life doesn't mean everyone does. I play because it's something fun to do with friends and to meet new people(yeah, I mean the real people, not their character). It's an amazing social environment. Sometimes, I just go online to talk with friends and do stupid things like run around rather than go on raids
Blizzard can make it an ultra restrictive game which lacks a large dynamic to personal expression but they don't seem to want to do it. I agree that a lot of this discussion shouldn't occur on public chats in the towns or whatever, but it shouldn't be silenced.
actually, you're nice hypothetical question given by social economists is interesting because it depends on how much risk you are willing to take. personally, I would want one where benefits are more concentrated and take my risk. and if you told me I had a 75% chance, I'd take it.
a big hole in your argument is that unconscious, sleeping, or even people in many types of comas are thinking individuals. There are been people who remember things said to them in the room while in a coma. Dreams are instances of enhanced brain activity(and I've gotten an idea from one or two). unconscious people are in that same realm.
so your examples are flawed but I Get your point so I'm not too worried about that. I would say this: As long as society is set up to where we are willing to kill those we don't have close relations with to improve our lives, abortion is perfectly ethical and legal. I am referring to war mostly. It is still seen by many(including many pro-lifers) as acceptable killing of life to protect the conforts of your own life. And these are just to protect conforts(i.e. civil rights, freedoms). So if you killing another perosn to protect yourself from a hypothetical bomb some time in the future is alright, why is it wrong for me to kill someone to protect myself from a life of misery taking care of this person?
I really just want consistency in our laws, nothing more or less. We just don't have it at all.
prison hasn't been a place for rehab for years. according to this judge in the NY times , he says few judges believe in the prison system as a place for rehab.
but the real question as to whether or not this is civil disobediance will be how they act from here on out. If they were doing this because they hated the copyright system, then they now have an international forum to say this and defend the position as a way to fight something they didn't believe in. of course, I highly doubt that is why they did it and will be willing to bet their defense will be some BS which makes no other point other than "hey, I pirated warez and want out now because I'm real sorry".
of course, remember what you imply by your response. you assume that every person who pirates software would never have bought it if it weren't available for download. I"m betting the truth is somehwere in between. But the fine doesn't have anything to do with the book value of those items. The fine they could face is up to a quarter million per title, which is probably something like one hundred million dollars if they have been pirating even a small amount of stuff(400 titles).
The interesting question to ask is "if there were no pirates, would companies have ever started puting security measures on there software". i.e. if the only copying that ever happened was the small scale, let my friends check it out type, would they have taken the time to put software protections schemes in place? no one really knows, but it would seem from my point of view that the answer is no. Every security measure has been taken to prevent copying on a large scale.
it's a bit different. what if you create a new species(breed, whatever) of plant that has some nice property of having the exact taste of habaneros and are only as spicy as, say... banana peppers. This is not trivial. it takes several thousand attempts at interbreeding to finally get what is essentially a new plant. Is your work in that field patentable? remember the steps to get there are not obvious and I would call the pepper significantly novel in the world of cooking.
well, then you can patent it. This is what I believe most people are talking about when they say they are patenting genes. what you are patenting is the end result of a lot of genetic engineering, which can usually be reduced to changes in just a few genes.
Of course, I'm not the grand parent so I can't say for sure. But you cannot patent a gene that is just naturally occurring. usually it has to do with creating your own.
there are other flaws in your argument.
1) google is not a Chinese company and therefore, does not have to follow this law to continue to exist. There is a big difference between the two cases and in this case, google's right to exist is not being threatened.
2) while you try to make reference to the google case here in the US, they are world's apart. The most glaring difference is that this is not a censorship issue. In the US, google is being asked to hand over anonymous search results that people have gotten(ie. no tracable information) so the government can show that regular internet filters are ineffective because innapropriate material gets through on seemingly appropriate search terms. Furthermore, google is not trying to defend your privacy by not complying. They have vociferously announced that there goal is to protect their trade secrets(caching programs and the like). The don't believe privacy is an issue in this case. only once has it been mentioned and they wrote it off as without basis.
so you should feel safe in knowing you haven't lost any privacy.
of course, you made the real point. it is all a question of personal morals and it shows that when google said they would do no evil, they just had a different definition of evil than most people.
my argument is not about the way you have to handle it to survive if you are inside of a country(ie. have no choice if you want to do any business at all). I Highly doubt hte brazilian govt would have even let this newspaper print articles if they were to be sent abroad only. The point is that no company has yet been willing to stand up to China when they are the ones making the autonomous choice to enter that country. This is not a case of a person trying to change the govt. with incredible risk to themselves. This is just a case of someone caving in to demands(as everyone else has)in order to open up more markets. I don't want to sound like I am only take offense to what google is doing because litterally noone else is willing to stand up and say I will not do business with a person thas lacks any ethics or morals(I know, both those words are all about perspective, but there are some limitations that a vast majority of the world have come to accept).
The WTO and almost every western govt. looking to grow their economy is also a part of this problem. But who knows. It may be that free trade with China is the best way to change the country. It is already privatizing many sectors(including the hallmark, banking). So there is a good chance that just a larger western economic presence could lead to faster change. But as history has shown, The chinese govt. is more htan willing to cash in on every bit of economic gain while just being more repressive to its own people. of course, I am american, and historically that has stood for trampling over anyone's rights in the name of profit. So I guess I should just accept it and move on.
so in other words, google wanted money and decided that because everyone else was being unethical, it wouldn't matter if they did? what is this, did google forget what it learned in kindergarten? you know, the whole discussion about doing what is right even if everyone else is wrong and standing by it.
Every little bit of effort has the potential to further free speech. The biggest name right now in the industry saying no to China might incite others to do the same and that means something. Someone has to have the balls to be the leader, and google is obviously not it. But that isn't a big deal to me. No matter how big a person(or corp) talks, not everyone is cut out to really take the sacrifices necessarry to stand by their values.
PS> I've been up for 20 hours now, spelling and grammar are no longer important matters.
but they do, don't they? as I am reading hte article, the chinese government is calling for censorship on google.cn. before today, there was no censorship on going to google.com and using the chinese language version. So in essense, purely to make there product easier to consume, they have decided to censor.
I could be wrong in my reading, but if I am correct, then google is just as in love with money as any other corporation and their slogan is complete bullshit.
to clarify: at least your first link was to one with problems concerning the entire line of athlon processors. a lot of those problems are specific to one of 10 different processors that paper covers. I would bet that tehre aren't that many in any given athlon.
funny you say that. was at home and watching TV for the first time in ages and what do I see: MTV following the lives as several pro gamers, none of who were Fatal1ty. It was kind of interesting to see these people who want/are pro gamers. It just looked horribly boring from my perspective but then again, I don't play games much any more.
it is probalby the fact that one is both intensely physical and mental while the other is mainly mental and reaction time. I think its great that people can get together and play games and make money and compete, but it isn't for me simply because in my mind, these new games always lack the physical aspect that traditional sports have. It's the same reason I don't enjoy watching chess(but I can look at it after the fact for info about why certain moves are good).
of course, as you said, it is my opinion. But watching Polamalu read a QB's mind and sprint across the field to get the interception has that added piece of being physically damn near superhuman. Seeing a video game player read another player's movements and then just move hte mouse there lacks that little bit. Of course, computer games are evolving every single year and I might be eating these words in a very short time and become one of those spectators.
I call bullshit. every other time in history passive resistance was done out in the open to show that people were willing to fully take whatever consequences people would throw at them because they had the strength of will to do so. just breaking the law and trying to hide so you don't face them just makes a regular criminal. Actually trying to effect change in laws comes with sacrifice. The companies are putting their shareholder's money on the line to get laws changed in their favor. so you have two options, fight them on the same terms or open and directed civil disobedience. rather, you just give them more ammunition because you lack the fortitude to stand by your principles. so give me an example where the resistance wasn't open and fought by sacrifice. You may try to use the boston Tea party as an example, but it would be a terrible use of it because everyone(those who made decisions) knew it was the colonists who did it and further, it was one part of a very open struggle. Unlike yourself(if you are one of these people), those colonists openly had to defy the authority. Do you think that taxes were some form of anonymous payment that they were refusing(though there aren't many examples of people in that time refusing to pay taxes).
as to the software analogy:
As you have pointed out differences, I will extend your same argument. hwo about an end to restrictions with non-commercial use of software? or even better, an end to any restrictions on non-commercial software whose output is directly an input of a person? Take a video game for example. Similar to a DVD, it requires a machine that reads it's code. That may be a computer or a video game system, but the output is the same(working emulators prove a great deal of software is not restricted to one medium). Why shouldn't non-commercial legal restrictions be removed from that? if fits your definition.
Of course, you can make other arguments, but in the end, most software is in a very similar class to movies/music. A great deal is made with the purpose of marketting it to a non-commercial entity. Most music, especially today, falls into that category. Just because for the first time today there are multiple platforms that can play the same music doesn't make it different from software. Especially since a great deal of software can be run on multiple platforms.
of course, I wonder why you think an end to legal restrictions isn't an end to copyright but I realize your position now. There would still be a commercial sector that would have to pay(for those people who make copyrighted material and expect the commercial sectors to use it).
no, they weren't coerced. The artists decided that they wanted access to the massive marketting abilities of hte big labels and thought the price was worth it. Few people can afford to market themselves on a large scale and some want to be more than a local underground band for good.
I actually now know 4 bands personally that have been approached to sign with the labels. 3 decided to not do it and one broke up before anything came of it. Those that rejected it did so because they thought it wasn't a lucrative enough deal and that they coudl do better on their own. Another classic example of a person holding out for a better contract is MC Hammer, who at first rejected the label offer because he saw he could make a great deal more selling tapes out of his trunk after he performed. So don't go giving a BS sob story; if you want to blame anyone for the contracts, blame those artists who are greedy enough for hte big bucks to sign away their fans. The recording label is like drugs. It would go away if artists had the strength of will to make it happen.
Or do you think that only the big labels are interested in the profit and the artist only cares about the music? because then you are just deluded. Yes, they care about hte music, but money is a big factor in their decisions. Or do you think it is just a coincidence that those artists who have become successful see piracy as a bad thing(not all, but a great many of them).
yes. but as I have said on other posts before, if you like an artist that chose to sign with the big labels, there is no reason to not follow the law and buy their CD(if it is worth the money to you, it isn't to me).
actually, most of the time, they are. remember, most Trustee's earn a raw percent on the value they add to the portfolio they are managing. It just happens to be that a lot of money that used to have different risk profiles will all start tohave the same risk profile. Not good or bad, just different.
you still haven't given an instance of stealing or claiming copyright.
I'm actually checking now with an old professor of mine. I thought hte difference witih pixar was that he was the majority share holder. in either case, I dont' think disney will vote him in as CEO. but there are a multitude of reasons for that.
doubt it. I"m pretty sure there are quite a few laws against him holding the CEO position at both companies. Now, there is the possibility of him sitting on the board of disney and maybe heading it. but that would be frowned upon by a lot of people. Shareholders don't like to have the same chairman for companies that are in the same space.
you must be a little bit daft to think a bug's life was a retelling of the Seven Samurai. it was a retelling of one of Aesops Fable's and followed a line of a previous movie that spoofed the seven samurai plot. If anything, in a round about way it was poking fun at the plot of Seven Samurai(and a nod to the value of that story). but a Bug's Life lacks any of the seriousness of Seven Samurai. It is not meant to make you think about the conundrum of the way the hero ant lives his life.
of course, as to its value, I don't know. I say it once 8 years ago and haven't seen it since. according to Woody Allen, the real value of a movie is how much money it makes. So I guess it was pretty damn good.
My point about pricing was not whether or not the market would support it. My point was, just becuase someone charges a lot for something you like doesn't make it alright to break the law(especially if you believe copyright law should be respected).
If an artists charges 20 dollars for a CD and nobody buys it, too bad. That poor fuck wasn't good enough. But a prime example is a band that I love. I was introduced to the eagles when I was in middle school and loved the music. But I never bought a CD because I thought the 40 dollars 2-CD set was too much. It didn't mean I went home and started downloading the CDs left and right. I went without it. After a time, I was able to find a CD at a reasonable price(online) and bought it.
I still feel my sotware analogy is viable. Engineers had a magical century where they could make things on these new fangled machines called computers and freely copy and distribute it. But it is over. People now have near infinite storage and can copy their own versions of software. Obviously, those programmers who expect to just sit around and collect royalties on something they did years ago are just out of date. It is the same argument because of course, if we got rid of charging for software, it would still be needed and therefore, boutique software firms would spring up. It would just be different than the program once, collect earnings till infinity model we have now.
I Don't actually support such a model, but it could exist even if we got rid of all copyright on software code as well. It happens to be a lot of people make music to earn money off of it by distribution to non-commercial entities(just like software). IF you don't like the law, work to change it. I hate when people compare themselves to the civil rights movement because it isn't the passive resistance. It is hiding in a corner so no one can see you and making yourself believe you are resisting the "man". but that is a different complaint entirely.
well, here is a timeline for you:
You start downloading MP3's
record companies start taking legal action against anyone violating their copyrights
you call them the wrongest pieces of shit on the planet who you will not fund
you then use this decision to validate your breaking of the law
So, to clarify my eariler points, my first question was rhetorical. I guess that just flew over your head. Or were you trying to me me sound stupid by feigning ignorance of that? I'm guessing the latter.
and just so you know, CD's haven't stayed the same price(in real terms, the only terms that matter). Equivalently, The 15-18 dollar CD you can buy today is equal to the same CD costing about 10 dollars back in 1985. So I guess prices have cut about in half as back then, CD's were over 20 dollars. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to realize this. It happens when you blindly complain about something in order to justify what you are doing.
The real question is why can't you admit you just prefer to get the music you like for free(illegally) rather than paying for it. You get pissed about how the free market works and then decide to break the law. There are loads of bands that put music up for free but you seem to have one goal, to get pissed off at other people who are willing to pay that much and keep the price of CD's up. Of course, a great example of the market working was the decrease in CD prices that have occurred in the last 2 years. What price would be good for you? 10 dollars(Itunes fills that need)? 5 dollars? The ten cents you seem to believe is the only expense a record company has?
nice use of the numbers. ofo course, you forget to mention that almost half of the money from downloaded music is towards ring tones(and they are a lot cheaper, so they most likely make up a much larger percent of all legal music downloads).
and of course, there is no reason why my buying an Ipod would have any effect on my downloading of music. Itunes is either good for you or it sucks(personally I hate it, a terrible program that doesn't run well). of course, if I ever get my hands on the 7000 or so songs my friend has collected, I might buy an Ipod so I cna listen to any of it at any time. I don't know anything about a real distribution, but I do know that 10/12 ipods I Have seen bought were purchased to hold a massive collection of illegal music. 1 was bought by a person who doesn't believe in downloading illegally. the other is split with about 50% being illegal.
So really, what you have done is taken a bunch of numbers and warped them to imply something you know nothing about. you have no idea how much of itunes is representing lost brick and mortar sales(remember, 15 bucks for hte album or 10 on itunes which you can get at home). but, like any good argument full of holes, you sweep the obvious under the rug.
So why do you really think the number of illegal file sharing has stayed the say? I"ll give you a hint: you have no fucking clue why and are just making an assumption. and you know what happens when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you and umption(brownie points if you know the movie with that line).
I mean, according to the british, George Washington was a terrorist. So we should always keep our perspective. history is written by the current winner.