Hey, you have every right to want credit given. I'd probably be a little ticked off if somebody posted my pics without at least mentioning that they weren't the photographer
But what I'm referring to - specifically - is when the act of pirating the image actually destroys the marketability of the image. An image that a stock agency would pay for, but which they no longer will pay for because it has found its way into circulation by being "shared" by people with no right to distribute it. I would still have the original file, but the seat on the airplane is now gone, permanently. This may not seem plausible to you, but it's in the nature of commercial work that serves narrowly focused audiences. And the more narrowly focused the audience, the more that pirated works quickly circulate within such a space, thereby further diminishing the value of the work put into creating it for prospective paying customers that might want to communicate to that same audience using the power of that image.
People who rip such images off steal marketability from the artist. Simple as that. Real consequences.
just don't say you took them, and if you share them then give me the credit for taking them. Compliments would be nice but aren't absolutely necessary
Come, now. There's a reason you're not too worried about the commercial value of those images being dliuted through piracy. That doesn't detract from their value to you, or any pleasure you might get out of knowing that someone else has enjoyed them. But you didn't invest hundreds of hours in the planning, execution, and post-production of those images, pay for models (or go through the trouble of getting releases written and signed), or deal with location property releases, or pay liability insurance on your set in case someone gets hit with a falling piece of lighting gear, or really anything like that at all. You took some images for your own enjoyment, and that's what those are (no, I haven't had a chance to look at every one of them beyond thumbnail size - it's a busy afternoon).
Produce an image that costs you several thousand dollars to create, and see how you feel when a mid-res proof of it is ripped off fron your portfolio, and a stock licensing house refuses to carry it because it's been compromised. All it takes is some graphic artist working with a comped proof to decide he doesn't think you should have control of your image, and it's all over. You're advocating that as the norm, not the painful exception.
what should be a cultural commodity and property of the people
So why aren't you forming organizations to elect people who promise that once they're in congress they'll pass bills forming a Department Of Entertainment that employees these people and which distributes their work? I mean, if these people and their work are going to be public property, you're going to need a nice solid bureaucracy to keep them working right. Of course, every four years, a new Secretary Of Music will need to be appointed and approved, which means that a years-long recording effort that no longer fits the new administration's taste in music will have to be abandoned in favor of something else. We certainly can't have a bunch of artists running around deciding for themselves whether or not to risk their time and money on something that won't be appreciated... no, it's better to have the government say what we enjoy.
I mean, it's working in North Korea. Centrally managed culture is awesome. Of course, next year, we'll have to see who's in charge of the culture, since the word "awesome" may have to be swapped out with "swell" or "da bomb" or something, depending on who gets elected.
You're certainly on to something, though. Artists should definitely be working for the state. And if they don't like it, I'm sure we have some openings in mining or seasonal farm labor. History's full of great examples of how to manage that sort of thing. Why, we could even form arist's "camps," where we could concentrate them for the best results! Excellent suggestion, citizen! No doubt our noble artists are rejoicing even now at the chance to be your property!
Well, nobody but you, of course. You're saying that it's OK to rip off work that happens to be stored or distributed digitally. If the sale of that work to paying customers is how an artist makes a living, how is your approval of everybody ripping it off NOT the same as those people wanting that work for free?
Admit it: you think artists should be paid, but just not by you. You're a leech that expects that artist to amuse you at no cost to you, and only on your terms.
if there's no money to be made, quit producing
There is money to be made. The artist sets the price, and some number of people consider it fair enough to meet. That's between the arist and the people who choose to pay. You want to have that arist's work, but remove choice from the equation. You want authority over how an arist publishes their work, rather than just leaving it between them and their actual customers.
Admit it: you don't have the fortitude to put up or shut up. You don't LIKE enough of the art produced by people who do it as hobbies and give it away. So instead you simply suck off of other people's work. If you don't care whether or not there's any entertainment, why are you ripping off the people who don't want to give you their work for free? Because you're a hypocrit, that's why.
but you haven't lost it because you didn't have it
So, it's up to you - the person who wants to be entertained with the work of an artist - to decide when and how that person's work should be published? YOU get to decide that a professional photographer's contemporary portrait of someone who is suddenly important in current events - a portrait that the photographer had to fly 2000 miles to take, hauling along two assistants and tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment - is or isn't something that the artist should have to give to you for free? The artist makes a gamble and invests in producing something. You want it. The artist says, "Sure, how about $10," and you say... "nah, I want it but not that badly"... so you take it anyway?
Such a photograph may only have the value that the photographer is banking on when it can be marketed with exclusive commercial publishing rights. You wish to make a nice little entertainment slave out of that arist, and dictate to them when you think they should work for free. I'm curious, have you ever sat across the table from someone who spent years in the studio working on a film or a recording, looked them in the eye, and said, "Wow, I really respect your talent and all the work you've done... but I'd really like to make sure that neither I nor any of my friends has to pay for being entertained, so I'm going to just go ahead and rip you off, OK? Oh, and PLEASE keep up the great work - I can't wait for the sequel!"
Or do you only want entertainment from people you don't respect as artists, so that you feel more comfortable ripping them off?
Or, is that you feel you're in the best position to decide when and how they should sell their work, and you know perfectly well when they've made enough money selling to other people who like them, and so - just by coincidence! - by the time you want to rip off their work, they just happen to have already made enough money already, and so they're not missing anything.
Are you really such an intellectual coward that you're willing to say you want that artist to work for you as a little slave of yours? Or is that you prefer that the other people, who DO agree to the artist's terms when acquiring their work, should be your slaves, and THEY get to pay the artist to work for your entertainment? Just trying to get a bead on who exactly it is that you think owes you the free ride, and who you think should meet the artist's requirements on your behalf.
I know, high school will start back up in a few weeks, and you'll have less time to nurture that acute sense of entitlement you've been working on all summer. But at least come clean and lay out the details of how you can simultaneously like an artist enough to want to be entertained by the work of their mind while - directly or indirectly - lying to them, and being a leech.
Of course, you have one more option. If you don't like the fact that an artist wants money in exchange for amusing you... walk away. Grow a spine, and commit to only having the people that want to give you their work at no charge provide you with your entertainment.
Having an opinion on when exactly a mass of undifferentiated cells becomes a person doesn't qualify as "ethics". It's just sophistry, and the insistence that a politician have one consistent opinion or the other is just demanding that they pander to the RIGHT kind of people, not those other WRONG kind of people. We might as well be arguing over whether the guy's a big endian or little endian.
You're missing the point. Why didn't he just way what you said, then? He's either:
1) Not smart enough to understand what you just said.
2) He disagrees, and thinks that it IS possible to define such a thing, but hasn't - as a constitutional scholar and law profressor, sitting US senator, and presumptive 1-of-2 choices for President of the United States - really thought much about it, even though it's a topic of hugely vocal interest among very active voting blocks amongst his liberal base.
3) He agrees with you, but doesn't have the courage of his convictions or any respect for the people writing him checks, so he's going to opt for pandering, even though he says that that's what's wrong with the country, etc. Complete, hypocritical weasleness.
Regardless of which of those three is his take on it, he opted to weasle out on the question to avoid being on the record. He didn't even want to be on the record (as the Candidate Of Change, no less) as changing the way we talk about such issues.
So, he's either dumb, a coward, or a craven weasle. Gosh, that just seems so at odds with the way that his media spokespeople describe him. What exactly is it, then, that makes college girls cry and actors write big checks to him? Is it the dumbness (because they hope that they can get Nancy Pelosi to tell him what to do), or the cowardlyness (because at least he'll be predictable), or the weasle-fu (because they think that's what will really make America be loved once again by, say, North Korea... a Weasle In Chief... now THAT's someone the Iranians could relate to, and then they'd stop building nukes. I see that now.).
Delegate abortion and similar local issues to the states and let them worry about this sort of crap.
You're missing the point. The president has to make decisions that can impact millions of lives. Don't you want to know where his ethical compass points? Do you REALLY think that the federal legislature and the executive branch shouldn't sweat issues like ethics?
but it's difficult to say what a good answer would have been in that particular circumstance
How about a little honesty, instead of Clintonian slipperyness and weasle-wording it? How about, "There's no point trying to pin down a day on the calender when the nervous system of a fetus is not, and then - an hour later - is sophisticated and functional enough that we'd all call it a baby human. But likewise, I'm very comfortable saying that everyone in this room has swatted a mosquito with a nervous system vastly more advanced than that of the dozen cells in an early embryo. This issue isn't about pinning down a date, it's about erring widely on one side or the other of a long period of time, and using reason." Well, perhaps a little more soft-sell than that... but isn't that supposed to be - in the absence of any other real experience - his actual main selling point?
it's an incredibly stupid idea to try to introduce voters to a new way of thinking, or even a fully formed thought. If someone sees a fully formed thought, they could disagree with you on it, and that disagreement could cost thousands of votes
But I thought that Obama was the candidate of Change We Can Believe In! So, what you're saying is, he shouldn't actually say what he thinks, and that his personal values are something he should hide from voters? I'm not saying I agree with McCain on conception... I'm saying that he actually said what he thinks, and can be evaluated on what he thinks, for better or worse. Obama was being a coward, and he's the guy that says he'll be better at diplomacy and unconditional face-to-face meetings with the world's worst thugs and murderers?
I'm not talking about irreplaceable commodities (airline seat). I'm talking about easily copied digital media. Way to mis-apply my argument though.
No, YOU'RE missing the point. Twice, now. The labor that a photographer puts into certain sorts of work, and the market for it, IS irreplaceable. It passes with time. When you rip off that work and distribute it, you are stealing the opportunity that the photographer has created by performing that labor. The photographer, for example, spends a lot of money and time to get physically in front of something that she wants to photograph, and for which she is gambling that she can find an audience who will meet her terms when she offers a price for the service she is providing. When you rip off that photographer, you're ripping off a piece of the irreplaceable - often very fleeting - market she has created with her labor and risk. That you can't even see how the simple airline seat analogy applies confirms my take on your lack of worldliness, and reminds me that you're probably not someone who creates things - including opportunities - for a living.
Not if the product of your labor is only valuable when it is consumed during a certain window of time, or put to use in a certain way. Many such labors are like airline seats. Once the opportunity to sell it passes, it's gone. When someone else runs off with your work and distributes it outside of any arrangement with you, they are eroding the value of the work. Your take on things betrays a very disconnected, uninformed understanding of the way that a photograph can carry a value immediately, in the near term, and over a longer period of time. Lacking that understanding, and not even understanding what the product in question actually IS (which is, much of the time, a service, not an artifact), you are in no position to preach on this.
Of course, you're not preaching, really. You're just trying to establish a little flimsy moral cover so that you don't feel bad about ripping off the people who produce the entertainment you want.
but it's almost always advantageous to change from a wrong conclusion to a correct one
It's not about changing your mind. It's about evaluating why someone held their previous position.
Did they simply have bad information?
Have they suddenly had a fundamental philosophical change that alters how you should look at their entire world view, and every policy pronouncement of theirs that is built on that platform?
Is their value system still only half baked, and this is just a sign of them slowly getting their act together?
Remember, Obama is the guy that just the other night (in that quasi-debate-format thing he attended with McCain in Colorado) who, when asked about when "human" life begins in the womb (as it relates, of course, to the abortion issue) said "that's above my pay grade." Wow. Never mind WHERE you are on that issue, isn't that - right there - THE most fundamental thing you have to wrestle with... science-wise, value-wise, and in all other ways before you should be talking about how you think that issue should be handled legislatively and judicially? For the record, I agree with him on being pro-choice, but I'm hugely annoyed with him (though hardly surprised) that it turns out he's been pandering on that issue for votes, rather than having a solid sense - personally - on how to think and communicate on that issue. Or worse (and this seems more typical of him), he DOES have such, and he's trying to continue to dance around answering so that he doesn't risk annoying the people who are supporting him only because he hasn't offended their sensibilities yet.
Why wonder about his real thoughts on space/science when one of the signature hot-button science/philosphy issues of modern times seems to be beyond his much-lauded intellect and communications skills to talk about? That was a VERY telling moment, if you ask me.
leaving any kind of tactical decision to those with the experience to do so: the people serving in the armed forces
But there would BE no tactical decisions to make without strategic decisions about when, where, and why to get the military involved in the first place. Likewise, issues with strategic importance (such as the use of nukes) absolutely have to involve the specific command from the C-in-C. Obviously a smart president is going to defer to his commanders about what's possible, the best way to accomplish a given task, etc. But do you really want military people and only military people deciding when and how to escalate a conflict... when or whether to ship out a new carrier group from one ocean to another? The president would be a fool to ignore input from his commanders, but we'd all be crazy to allow the military to make all such decisions in a vacuum. And of course, you're not always going to be talking about a "declaring war" situation. The crazy jihaddist types have totally learned that lesson. One way to consternate your enemy is avoid giving them a geopolitically concentrated enemy that has any resemblance to historical nation-state foes. Those days are gone (Russia not withstanding).
I'm not sure how you can claim Obama is such a leftie
No, what I said was that he's pandering to the far left for as long as possible by being deliberately as vague as possible so they don't see a threat or anything to burst their bubble. That's why I said they'd be in for a shock if/when he has to actually interact with the real world instead of the fantasy one his campaign talks about when they write his speeches. There's a reason they have him avoid real interviews and press conferences. Every time someone asks him a real question, he's going to disappoint the people that are funding him. You think the left is mad because he's turned out to be rational about being able to monitor overseas communications? Wait until he "refines" his position about Iraq based on new (to him!) information, and defers to the commanders involved on the ground, not his own vacuous politcal button pushing panderosas.
the pendulum is finally swinging back towards the social-contract view of government-granted, temporary monopolies described in Article I section 8 of the constitution
Which provides, in which way, for legal cover when millions of kids grab ripped-off copies of a newly released recording the day after the musician in question publishes it for sale?
social-contract view
So, an artist who spends years putting together a recording, or novel, or opera, etc., has no social contract upon which to lean? Only the people who want the material at no charge get to invoke that concept in the spirit of pendulum-swinging? If you don't like the fact that your favorite musician wants to charge you for their work, walk away. The only social contract that matters here is the one where the people who want the artist to work for them either meet what that artists asks as a price, or they take their entertainment-buying dollar elsewhere. You're doing your level best to excuse people from ripping off the entertainment they want because they can. Songs for a dollar? A movie appearing on your TiVo for $1.99? The horror! It's a good thing that we have earnest young rebels willing to forward the useful arts by ripping that stuff off, instead.
Let me just say that, as someone who's not a US citizen, the fact that you refer to your president as "Commander in Chief" scares me. A lot.
Why? That's the primary role of that position. People seem VERY confused on this subject. The president doesn't make legislation happen. The president can't tax anyone. The president is one of the three legs of the checks-and-balances system, with the congress and the courts impacting some issues far more than the president can or should.
The president is the civilian who is in charge of executive tasks, and the defense of the country is first among those. The military and its related services/agencies are the tools of that job.
I specifically mention the C-in-C part of the job because it's the part that Obama is least suited for. But who decides how much humanitarian aid to fly off of an aircraft carrier into Burma after a disaster? Who made the decision to land aid-payload by military cargo aircraft in Georgia the other day, at what risk of of conflict with the Russians rolling tanks around in that country? The person commanding the military. The commander-in-chief. Who will be issuing orders to withdraw troops from one spot and move them to another as needed? Who will be interacting with the Ukraine, or Poland on military matters? When the Europeans promise more military support in Afghanistan but continue to come up short of delivering, who gets to decide whether and how to make up for that shortcoming, even as girls' schools are being burned down by the Taliban? Such things fall on the president to execute. He's the chief executive, and the commander in chief of a military that includes the Coast Guard as well as the mobile forces. Obama's a concern because of his unfamiliarity (other than complaining about other people) in those areas, and his willingness to make vague policy pronouncements rooted in that ignorance.
Don't you understand? Obama is completely black-and-white in his assertions that his political opponents are wrong, wrong, wrong about how they see things. His completely, unshakably clear on how wrong everyone else is. That's pretty black-and-white. Saying that one should "consider all sides" while also saying "the side on which my opponents live is wrong, and is a failure, and we must stop it" is - by definition - hypocrisy. He's "considering" other sides just long enough to 100% black-and-white dismiss them. He's NO different than his opponents in that sense, except that he's pandering to the warm-and-fuzzy crowd, who don't pay very close attention, by saying that he's post partisan and open to discussion, etc. He's trying to have it both ways, and that's the simplest demonstration of his immaturity you could ask for. He's happy to entertain multiple points of view, as long their all his, and don't upset the money-raising engine on the far left. This isn't limited to him - all candidates do it. The difference is that even as he's doing it, he's lying about his commitment to not doing it. That's what he's made of: deceit, right out of the gate, on the very thing that he claims makes him different.
Ask yourself this, if California voted to seperate from the US how do you think your government should respond?
You seem to be something of a student of history. How is it that you missed what happened when separtists in numerous states in the US tried seceding? Why ask about just a hypothetical California case when you can look up what actually happened last time that issue really came up? Essentially, the US did exactly what Georgia just did... they went after the violent sepratists to put them out of business. We had a years-long civil war over just that issue, and the separists that tried to pry the country apart lost in their efforts.
Is this the kind of face you want America to have?
Actually, I want that "face" to be driven by actual principles. Obama avoids showing his at all costs, and when they do show, they're contradictory, or imply a very shaky house-of-cards case of mixed premises. Whatever intellectual horsepower or rhetorical elegance he posesses is being applied to and is in the service of a very patch-work, self-defeating, confused set of principles. THAT is not the face I want America to have. He doesn't know himself, and is very careful to hide how he actually feels about a lot of things, because he knows that he has to tap-dance around issues like his crazy, race-baiting friend the preacher and what tolerating/encouraging him for 20 years (including his children's formative years, listening to him blather every week) says about his world view.
Are you really looking for a gotcha contest on mispoken names or recollections? Is that how you'll evaluate the deliberative decision-making perspective that a person brings to being the C-in-C? We're not hiring a spokesmodel (though that seems to be what a lot of people think the job is about - how embarassing). People don't need an inspirational president, they need a competent one who actually knows who he is and what he stands for. Leave it to the lefties to imply that it's the government's job to be the source of inspiration and cultural guidance lacking in homes that use their Wii and the Cartoon Network to raise their children. No, I'd rather leave the cultural polishing to the people IN the culture, and have them hire someone as president because he's been around the block enough to do the job right.
Someone like Obama, who claims to be "post partisan" while in the same breath saying that his political counterparts are idealogically unseparable from "failed ideas" is just plain funny. He's far MORE partisan than his opponent, and utterly slavish to a very loud, far left minority. Is THAT the face you want for America? A poll-following pretty boy who hates to be asked what he really thinks lest he have to actually get pinned down on specifics? No thanks.
And don't believe for a New York second that the democrats are any better
The difference is that Democrats will get more votes from young people who think that only chumps (and old people like McCain) should have to pay for movies, and who capable of compartmentalizing their "respect" for their favorite musicians separately from their willingness to happily rip them off.
The hypocrisy is stunning. They don't want to be told what they can and can't do online (including burning a huge portion of the available bandwidth while ripping off entertainment), but they want the ability to tell a business that builds and sustains a network how they should operate it.
He needs to be in a retirement home, not the Whitehouse
Yes, we're much better off with a president who thinks we should have the UN Security Council issue Very Stern Words towards Russia over their actions in Georgia... you know, a president who doesn't understand that Russia has a veto-enabled seat there, and can simply shut such things down. It's that sort of clueless grasp on foreign relations and international issues that makes an inexperienced smoke-blower like Obama a non-starter. Compare their initial reactions to that turn of events. McCain spoke his mind immediately, and has not changed it. Obama started out with a "why can't we all just get along - they need to show restraint" comment, and complained that McCain was "shooting from the hip" and being too aggressive in criticizing Russia. A day later? Obama had "refined" his position to echo exactly what McCain (who actually understands what's going on and who the players are) had already articulated.
Doesn't matter, right? Change! All we need is Change! Doesn't matter from what, or to what, of course. Just CHANGE! Change we can "believe in!" What a bunch of vague, useless, pandering crap. When forced to actually talk detailed substance, Obama has to give in face real issues realistically, and it annoys his leftist supporters who like him most when he's a blank slate that they think will do what they tell him to. If he actually gets the job, they're in for a real shock, because even though he's going to fall on is face learning as he goes, by the time he actually gets around to doing the job of C-in-C, he's going to have to do a lot of back pedaling on his vaporous campaign semi-promises.
Being old enough to know how things work and what's actually at stake is bad as far as you're concerned? I'm sure you'd rather the office of president was available to college freshmen.
the technology they are about to regulate
Do you actually even understand what Congress does, and which party is running it? Maybe if you weren't so old, your mind would be clearer.
Isn't one of the challenges to nuclear that it takes years or decades to break even from generated power after the expensive construction of the plant?
Compared to the years it takes to amortize the Crazy Dictators and Wackadoos financial baggage that comes with buying a great portion of your energy from places trying their hardest to be run by medieval-minded mysoginistic violent theocrats like the people running Iran, or blowhard Marxist buffoons like Hugo Chavez? Nukes have indirect and long terms costs, but so does having to buy oil from crazy people.
You think this bunch would worry about a few post office employees or mail room people dying?
No, of course not. They, personally, like it when the little guy dies horribly. They want children to starve, endangered species to become extinct, and senior citizens to have to eat dog food. They actually want those tings, as you know. It's good of you to point that out, though, just in case someone who hadn't made up their mind yet can safely settle on them as cartoon villains. Certainly they're worse, of course, than the previous "bunch," who were perfectly happy to see someone like Vince Foster "commit suicide" while their history of crooked dealings was on parade. What? That's crazy talk? Oh.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, you have every right to want credit given. I'd probably be a little ticked off if somebody posted my pics without at least mentioning that they weren't the photographer
But what I'm referring to - specifically - is when the act of pirating the image actually destroys the marketability of the image. An image that a stock agency would pay for, but which they no longer will pay for because it has found its way into circulation by being "shared" by people with no right to distribute it. I would still have the original file, but the seat on the airplane is now gone, permanently. This may not seem plausible to you, but it's in the nature of commercial work that serves narrowly focused audiences. And the more narrowly focused the audience, the more that pirated works quickly circulate within such a space, thereby further diminishing the value of the work put into creating it for prospective paying customers that might want to communicate to that same audience using the power of that image.
People who rip such images off steal marketability from the artist. Simple as that. Real consequences.
just don't say you took them, and if you share them then give me the credit for taking them. Compliments would be nice but aren't absolutely necessary
Come, now. There's a reason you're not too worried about the commercial value of those images being dliuted through piracy. That doesn't detract from their value to you, or any pleasure you might get out of knowing that someone else has enjoyed them. But you didn't invest hundreds of hours in the planning, execution, and post-production of those images, pay for models (or go through the trouble of getting releases written and signed), or deal with location property releases, or pay liability insurance on your set in case someone gets hit with a falling piece of lighting gear, or really anything like that at all. You took some images for your own enjoyment, and that's what those are (no, I haven't had a chance to look at every one of them beyond thumbnail size - it's a busy afternoon).
Produce an image that costs you several thousand dollars to create, and see how you feel when a mid-res proof of it is ripped off fron your portfolio, and a stock licensing house refuses to carry it because it's been compromised. All it takes is some graphic artist working with a comped proof to decide he doesn't think you should have control of your image, and it's all over. You're advocating that as the norm, not the painful exception.
what should be a cultural commodity and property of the people
So why aren't you forming organizations to elect people who promise that once they're in congress they'll pass bills forming a Department Of Entertainment that employees these people and which distributes their work? I mean, if these people and their work are going to be public property, you're going to need a nice solid bureaucracy to keep them working right. Of course, every four years, a new Secretary Of Music will need to be appointed and approved, which means that a years-long recording effort that no longer fits the new administration's taste in music will have to be abandoned in favor of something else. We certainly can't have a bunch of artists running around deciding for themselves whether or not to risk their time and money on something that won't be appreciated... no, it's better to have the government say what we enjoy.
I mean, it's working in North Korea. Centrally managed culture is awesome. Of course, next year, we'll have to see who's in charge of the culture, since the word "awesome" may have to be swapped out with "swell" or "da bomb" or something, depending on who gets elected.
You're certainly on to something, though. Artists should definitely be working for the state. And if they don't like it, I'm sure we have some openings in mining or seasonal farm labor. History's full of great examples of how to manage that sort of thing. Why, we could even form arist's "camps," where we could concentrate them for the best results! Excellent suggestion, citizen! No doubt our noble artists are rejoicing even now at the chance to be your property!
Nobody said anybody had to work for free
Well, nobody but you, of course. You're saying that it's OK to rip off work that happens to be stored or distributed digitally. If the sale of that work to paying customers is how an artist makes a living, how is your approval of everybody ripping it off NOT the same as those people wanting that work for free?
Admit it: you think artists should be paid, but just not by you. You're a leech that expects that artist to amuse you at no cost to you, and only on your terms.
if there's no money to be made, quit producing
There is money to be made. The artist sets the price, and some number of people consider it fair enough to meet. That's between the arist and the people who choose to pay. You want to have that arist's work, but remove choice from the equation. You want authority over how an arist publishes their work, rather than just leaving it between them and their actual customers.
Admit it: you don't have the fortitude to put up or shut up. You don't LIKE enough of the art produced by people who do it as hobbies and give it away. So instead you simply suck off of other people's work. If you don't care whether or not there's any entertainment, why are you ripping off the people who don't want to give you their work for free? Because you're a hypocrit, that's why.
but you haven't lost it because you didn't have it
... so you take it anyway?
... but I'd really like to make sure that neither I nor any of my friends has to pay for being entertained, so I'm going to just go ahead and rip you off, OK? Oh, and PLEASE keep up the great work - I can't wait for the sequel!"
So, it's up to you - the person who wants to be entertained with the work of an artist - to decide when and how that person's work should be published? YOU get to decide that a professional photographer's contemporary portrait of someone who is suddenly important in current events - a portrait that the photographer had to fly 2000 miles to take, hauling along two assistants and tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment - is or isn't something that the artist should have to give to you for free? The artist makes a gamble and invests in producing something. You want it. The artist says, "Sure, how about $10," and you say... "nah, I want it but not that badly"
Such a photograph may only have the value that the photographer is banking on when it can be marketed with exclusive commercial publishing rights. You wish to make a nice little entertainment slave out of that arist, and dictate to them when you think they should work for free. I'm curious, have you ever sat across the table from someone who spent years in the studio working on a film or a recording, looked them in the eye, and said, "Wow, I really respect your talent and all the work you've done
Or do you only want entertainment from people you don't respect as artists, so that you feel more comfortable ripping them off?
Or, is that you feel you're in the best position to decide when and how they should sell their work, and you know perfectly well when they've made enough money selling to other people who like them, and so - just by coincidence! - by the time you want to rip off their work, they just happen to have already made enough money already, and so they're not missing anything.
Are you really such an intellectual coward that you're willing to say you want that artist to work for you as a little slave of yours? Or is that you prefer that the other people, who DO agree to the artist's terms when acquiring their work, should be your slaves, and THEY get to pay the artist to work for your entertainment? Just trying to get a bead on who exactly it is that you think owes you the free ride, and who you think should meet the artist's requirements on your behalf.
I know, high school will start back up in a few weeks, and you'll have less time to nurture that acute sense of entitlement you've been working on all summer. But at least come clean and lay out the details of how you can simultaneously like an artist enough to want to be entertained by the work of their mind while - directly or indirectly - lying to them, and being a leech.
Of course, you have one more option. If you don't like the fact that an artist wants money in exchange for amusing you... walk away. Grow a spine, and commit to only having the people that want to give you their work at no charge provide you with your entertainment.
Having an opinion on when exactly a mass of undifferentiated cells becomes a person doesn't qualify as "ethics". It's just sophistry, and the insistence that a politician have one consistent opinion or the other is just demanding that they pander to the RIGHT kind of people, not those other WRONG kind of people. We might as well be arguing over whether the guy's a big endian or little endian.
You're missing the point. Why didn't he just way what you said, then? He's either:
1) Not smart enough to understand what you just said.
2) He disagrees, and thinks that it IS possible to define such a thing, but hasn't - as a constitutional scholar and law profressor, sitting US senator, and presumptive 1-of-2 choices for President of the United States - really thought much about it, even though it's a topic of hugely vocal interest among very active voting blocks amongst his liberal base.
3) He agrees with you, but doesn't have the courage of his convictions or any respect for the people writing him checks, so he's going to opt for pandering, even though he says that that's what's wrong with the country, etc. Complete, hypocritical weasleness.
Regardless of which of those three is his take on it, he opted to weasle out on the question to avoid being on the record. He didn't even want to be on the record (as the Candidate Of Change, no less) as changing the way we talk about such issues.
So, he's either dumb, a coward, or a craven weasle. Gosh, that just seems so at odds with the way that his media spokespeople describe him. What exactly is it, then, that makes college girls cry and actors write big checks to him? Is it the dumbness (because they hope that they can get Nancy Pelosi to tell him what to do), or the cowardlyness (because at least he'll be predictable), or the weasle-fu (because they think that's what will really make America be loved once again by, say, North Korea... a Weasle In Chief... now THAT's someone the Iranians could relate to, and then they'd stop building nukes. I see that now.).
Delegate abortion and similar local issues to the states and let them worry about this sort of crap.
You're missing the point. The president has to make decisions that can impact millions of lives. Don't you want to know where his ethical compass points? Do you REALLY think that the federal legislature and the executive branch shouldn't sweat issues like ethics?
but it's difficult to say what a good answer would have been in that particular circumstance
How about a little honesty, instead of Clintonian slipperyness and weasle-wording it? How about, "There's no point trying to pin down a day on the calender when the nervous system of a fetus is not, and then - an hour later - is sophisticated and functional enough that we'd all call it a baby human. But likewise, I'm very comfortable saying that everyone in this room has swatted a mosquito with a nervous system vastly more advanced than that of the dozen cells in an early embryo. This issue isn't about pinning down a date, it's about erring widely on one side or the other of a long period of time, and using reason." Well, perhaps a little more soft-sell than that... but isn't that supposed to be - in the absence of any other real experience - his actual main selling point?
it's an incredibly stupid idea to try to introduce voters to a new way of thinking, or even a fully formed thought. If someone sees a fully formed thought, they could disagree with you on it, and that disagreement could cost thousands of votes
But I thought that Obama was the candidate of Change We Can Believe In! So, what you're saying is, he shouldn't actually say what he thinks, and that his personal values are something he should hide from voters? I'm not saying I agree with McCain on conception... I'm saying that he actually said what he thinks, and can be evaluated on what he thinks, for better or worse. Obama was being a coward, and he's the guy that says he'll be better at diplomacy and unconditional face-to-face meetings with the world's worst thugs and murderers?
I'm not talking about irreplaceable commodities (airline seat). I'm talking about easily copied digital media. Way to mis-apply my argument though.
No, YOU'RE missing the point. Twice, now. The labor that a photographer puts into certain sorts of work, and the market for it, IS irreplaceable. It passes with time. When you rip off that work and distribute it, you are stealing the opportunity that the photographer has created by performing that labor. The photographer, for example, spends a lot of money and time to get physically in front of something that she wants to photograph, and for which she is gambling that she can find an audience who will meet her terms when she offers a price for the service she is providing. When you rip off that photographer, you're ripping off a piece of the irreplaceable - often very fleeting - market she has created with her labor and risk. That you can't even see how the simple airline seat analogy applies confirms my take on your lack of worldliness, and reminds me that you're probably not someone who creates things - including opportunities - for a living.
you still have the product of it
Not if the product of your labor is only valuable when it is consumed during a certain window of time, or put to use in a certain way. Many such labors are like airline seats. Once the opportunity to sell it passes, it's gone. When someone else runs off with your work and distributes it outside of any arrangement with you, they are eroding the value of the work. Your take on things betrays a very disconnected, uninformed understanding of the way that a photograph can carry a value immediately, in the near term, and over a longer period of time. Lacking that understanding, and not even understanding what the product in question actually IS (which is, much of the time, a service, not an artifact), you are in no position to preach on this.
Of course, you're not preaching, really. You're just trying to establish a little flimsy moral cover so that you don't feel bad about ripping off the people who produce the entertainment you want.
but it's almost always advantageous to change from a wrong conclusion to a correct one
... science-wise, value-wise, and in all other ways before you should be talking about how you think that issue should be handled legislatively and judicially? For the record, I agree with him on being pro-choice, but I'm hugely annoyed with him (though hardly surprised) that it turns out he's been pandering on that issue for votes, rather than having a solid sense - personally - on how to think and communicate on that issue. Or worse (and this seems more typical of him), he DOES have such, and he's trying to continue to dance around answering so that he doesn't risk annoying the people who are supporting him only because he hasn't offended their sensibilities yet.
It's not about changing your mind. It's about evaluating why someone held their previous position.
Did they simply have bad information?
Have they suddenly had a fundamental philosophical change that alters how you should look at their entire world view, and every policy pronouncement of theirs that is built on that platform?
Is their value system still only half baked, and this is just a sign of them slowly getting their act together?
Remember, Obama is the guy that just the other night (in that quasi-debate-format thing he attended with McCain in Colorado) who, when asked about when "human" life begins in the womb (as it relates, of course, to the abortion issue) said "that's above my pay grade." Wow. Never mind WHERE you are on that issue, isn't that - right there - THE most fundamental thing you have to wrestle with
Why wonder about his real thoughts on space/science when one of the signature hot-button science/philosphy issues of modern times seems to be beyond his much-lauded intellect and communications skills to talk about? That was a VERY telling moment, if you ask me.
leaving any kind of tactical decision to those with the experience to do so: the people serving in the armed forces
But there would BE no tactical decisions to make without strategic decisions about when, where, and why to get the military involved in the first place. Likewise, issues with strategic importance (such as the use of nukes) absolutely have to involve the specific command from the C-in-C. Obviously a smart president is going to defer to his commanders about what's possible, the best way to accomplish a given task, etc. But do you really want military people and only military people deciding when and how to escalate a conflict... when or whether to ship out a new carrier group from one ocean to another? The president would be a fool to ignore input from his commanders, but we'd all be crazy to allow the military to make all such decisions in a vacuum. And of course, you're not always going to be talking about a "declaring war" situation. The crazy jihaddist types have totally learned that lesson. One way to consternate your enemy is avoid giving them a geopolitically concentrated enemy that has any resemblance to historical nation-state foes. Those days are gone (Russia not withstanding).
I thought Microsoft was on record as pro-net neutrality
Perhaps they are, in the sense that they would prefer a government that is neutral with regard to what a company does with its own network.
I'm not sure how you can claim Obama is such a leftie
No, what I said was that he's pandering to the far left for as long as possible by being deliberately as vague as possible so they don't see a threat or anything to burst their bubble. That's why I said they'd be in for a shock if/when he has to actually interact with the real world instead of the fantasy one his campaign talks about when they write his speeches. There's a reason they have him avoid real interviews and press conferences. Every time someone asks him a real question, he's going to disappoint the people that are funding him. You think the left is mad because he's turned out to be rational about being able to monitor overseas communications? Wait until he "refines" his position about Iraq based on new (to him!) information, and defers to the commanders involved on the ground, not his own vacuous politcal button pushing panderosas.
the pendulum is finally swinging back towards the social-contract view of government-granted, temporary monopolies described in Article I section 8 of the constitution
Which provides, in which way, for legal cover when millions of kids grab ripped-off copies of a newly released recording the day after the musician in question publishes it for sale?
social-contract view
So, an artist who spends years putting together a recording, or novel, or opera, etc., has no social contract upon which to lean? Only the people who want the material at no charge get to invoke that concept in the spirit of pendulum-swinging? If you don't like the fact that your favorite musician wants to charge you for their work, walk away. The only social contract that matters here is the one where the people who want the artist to work for them either meet what that artists asks as a price, or they take their entertainment-buying dollar elsewhere. You're doing your level best to excuse people from ripping off the entertainment they want because they can. Songs for a dollar? A movie appearing on your TiVo for $1.99? The horror! It's a good thing that we have earnest young rebels willing to forward the useful arts by ripping that stuff off, instead.
Let me just say that, as someone who's not a US citizen, the fact that you refer to your president as "Commander in Chief" scares me. A lot.
Why? That's the primary role of that position. People seem VERY confused on this subject. The president doesn't make legislation happen. The president can't tax anyone. The president is one of the three legs of the checks-and-balances system, with the congress and the courts impacting some issues far more than the president can or should.
The president is the civilian who is in charge of executive tasks, and the defense of the country is first among those. The military and its related services/agencies are the tools of that job.
I specifically mention the C-in-C part of the job because it's the part that Obama is least suited for. But who decides how much humanitarian aid to fly off of an aircraft carrier into Burma after a disaster? Who made the decision to land aid-payload by military cargo aircraft in Georgia the other day, at what risk of of conflict with the Russians rolling tanks around in that country? The person commanding the military. The commander-in-chief. Who will be issuing orders to withdraw troops from one spot and move them to another as needed? Who will be interacting with the Ukraine, or Poland on military matters? When the Europeans promise more military support in Afghanistan but continue to come up short of delivering, who gets to decide whether and how to make up for that shortcoming, even as girls' schools are being burned down by the Taliban? Such things fall on the president to execute. He's the chief executive, and the commander in chief of a military that includes the Coast Guard as well as the mobile forces. Obama's a concern because of his unfamiliarity (other than complaining about other people) in those areas, and his willingness to make vague policy pronouncements rooted in that ignorance.
shades of gray
Don't you understand? Obama is completely black-and-white in his assertions that his political opponents are wrong, wrong, wrong about how they see things. His completely, unshakably clear on how wrong everyone else is. That's pretty black-and-white. Saying that one should "consider all sides" while also saying "the side on which my opponents live is wrong, and is a failure, and we must stop it" is - by definition - hypocrisy. He's "considering" other sides just long enough to 100% black-and-white dismiss them. He's NO different than his opponents in that sense, except that he's pandering to the warm-and-fuzzy crowd, who don't pay very close attention, by saying that he's post partisan and open to discussion, etc. He's trying to have it both ways, and that's the simplest demonstration of his immaturity you could ask for. He's happy to entertain multiple points of view, as long their all his, and don't upset the money-raising engine on the far left. This isn't limited to him - all candidates do it. The difference is that even as he's doing it, he's lying about his commitment to not doing it. That's what he's made of: deceit, right out of the gate, on the very thing that he claims makes him different.
Ask yourself this, if California voted to seperate from the US how do you think your government should respond?
You seem to be something of a student of history. How is it that you missed what happened when separtists in numerous states in the US tried seceding? Why ask about just a hypothetical California case when you can look up what actually happened last time that issue really came up? Essentially, the US did exactly what Georgia just did... they went after the violent sepratists to put them out of business. We had a years-long civil war over just that issue, and the separists that tried to pry the country apart lost in their efforts.
Is this the kind of face you want America to have?
Actually, I want that "face" to be driven by actual principles. Obama avoids showing his at all costs, and when they do show, they're contradictory, or imply a very shaky house-of-cards case of mixed premises. Whatever intellectual horsepower or rhetorical elegance he posesses is being applied to and is in the service of a very patch-work, self-defeating, confused set of principles. THAT is not the face I want America to have. He doesn't know himself, and is very careful to hide how he actually feels about a lot of things, because he knows that he has to tap-dance around issues like his crazy, race-baiting friend the preacher and what tolerating/encouraging him for 20 years (including his children's formative years, listening to him blather every week) says about his world view.
Are you really looking for a gotcha contest on mispoken names or recollections? Is that how you'll evaluate the deliberative decision-making perspective that a person brings to being the C-in-C? We're not hiring a spokesmodel (though that seems to be what a lot of people think the job is about - how embarassing). People don't need an inspirational president, they need a competent one who actually knows who he is and what he stands for. Leave it to the lefties to imply that it's the government's job to be the source of inspiration and cultural guidance lacking in homes that use their Wii and the Cartoon Network to raise their children. No, I'd rather leave the cultural polishing to the people IN the culture, and have them hire someone as president because he's been around the block enough to do the job right.
Someone like Obama, who claims to be "post partisan" while in the same breath saying that his political counterparts are idealogically unseparable from "failed ideas" is just plain funny. He's far MORE partisan than his opponent, and utterly slavish to a very loud, far left minority. Is THAT the face you want for America? A poll-following pretty boy who hates to be asked what he really thinks lest he have to actually get pinned down on specifics? No thanks.
And don't believe for a New York second that the democrats are any better
The difference is that Democrats will get more votes from young people who think that only chumps (and old people like McCain) should have to pay for movies, and who capable of compartmentalizing their "respect" for their favorite musicians separately from their willingness to happily rip them off.
The hypocrisy is stunning. They don't want to be told what they can and can't do online (including burning a huge portion of the available bandwidth while ripping off entertainment), but they want the ability to tell a business that builds and sustains a network how they should operate it.
He needs to be in a retirement home, not the Whitehouse
Yes, we're much better off with a president who thinks we should have the UN Security Council issue Very Stern Words towards Russia over their actions in Georgia... you know, a president who doesn't understand that Russia has a veto-enabled seat there, and can simply shut such things down. It's that sort of clueless grasp on foreign relations and international issues that makes an inexperienced smoke-blower like Obama a non-starter. Compare their initial reactions to that turn of events. McCain spoke his mind immediately, and has not changed it. Obama started out with a "why can't we all just get along - they need to show restraint" comment, and complained that McCain was "shooting from the hip" and being too aggressive in criticizing Russia. A day later? Obama had "refined" his position to echo exactly what McCain (who actually understands what's going on and who the players are) had already articulated.
Doesn't matter, right? Change! All we need is Change! Doesn't matter from what, or to what, of course. Just CHANGE! Change we can "believe in!" What a bunch of vague, useless, pandering crap. When forced to actually talk detailed substance, Obama has to give in face real issues realistically, and it annoys his leftist supporters who like him most when he's a blank slate that they think will do what they tell him to. If he actually gets the job, they're in for a real shock, because even though he's going to fall on is face learning as he goes, by the time he actually gets around to doing the job of C-in-C, he's going to have to do a lot of back pedaling on his vaporous campaign semi-promises.
Being old enough to know how things work and what's actually at stake is bad as far as you're concerned? I'm sure you'd rather the office of president was available to college freshmen.
the technology they are about to regulate
Do you actually even understand what Congress does, and which party is running it? Maybe if you weren't so old, your mind would be clearer.
Isn't one of the challenges to nuclear that it takes years or decades to break even from generated power after the expensive construction of the plant?
Compared to the years it takes to amortize the Crazy Dictators and Wackadoos financial baggage that comes with buying a great portion of your energy from places trying their hardest to be run by medieval-minded mysoginistic violent theocrats like the people running Iran, or blowhard Marxist buffoons like Hugo Chavez? Nukes have indirect and long terms costs, but so does having to buy oil from crazy people.
You think this bunch would worry about a few post office employees or mail room people dying?
No, of course not. They, personally, like it when the little guy dies horribly. They want children to starve, endangered species to become extinct, and senior citizens to have to eat dog food. They actually want those tings, as you know. It's good of you to point that out, though, just in case someone who hadn't made up their mind yet can safely settle on them as cartoon villains. Certainly they're worse, of course, than the previous "bunch," who were perfectly happy to see someone like Vince Foster "commit suicide" while their history of crooked dealings was on parade. What? That's crazy talk? Oh.
Your batteries contain much nastier chemicals than the methanol in the fuel cell.
Er... yes, but I'm not pouring them into the camera, or pumping them around the camera in little tubes to power other peripherals, etc.