if you can't differentiate "suit" and "suite" based on context, go learn/speak a more rigid language like latin
You're not flaming, just missing the point.
Yes, word use changes - but the meaning of the things those words are used to represent do not. When people conflate to similar words to one word, and then use that one less-articulate, less-informing word, one of two things happens. Either they have to them work harder to provide context, or meaning (clarity, etc) is lost.
So when someone says "I can't wait to get my new suit," and you can't tell if they're talking about clothing, a room full of furniture, or new office space, it's just that much harder to communicate. It's not pronounciation I care about, it's the erosion of clarity and the constant shrinking of working vocabulary size (and the deadening of cognition that goes with it).
Beware those rural folk. My inlaws are rural-folk, and abuse language and commonly-understood analogies on daily basis.
You are, of course, completely correct about this. Some folks I know from rural PA simply cannot process some common terms. Less in the analogy vein, but more in the "not getting it" vein, they have a completely random - but always maddening - way of mixing up the words "suit" and "suite." Usually, they err on the side of pronouncing them both "suit." I'm afraid I have to bite my tongue pretty regularly to keep the peace. So, you're right, certainly about that artifact of semi-isolated language use, as seen these days mostly in quieter rural areas.
: CARROT AND STICK - Yes, this phrase has been discussed here previously. I thought the origin of this expression was pretty clear. But it turns out there are two schools of thought - 1. carrot ON a stick (a carrot dangling on a string on a stick before a stubborn mule) and 2. carrot and/or stick (alternating punishment and reward).
You are school 1 obviously, but 2 seems valid too, and the way I have mostly heard it used.
I guess my point is that, having grown up around plenty of rural folks - including people who keep horses and have driven wagon teams and carriages - I've heard the "school 1" usage for over 40 years. But I have noticed the school 2 usage very recently popping up in more common/media usage, and found that (relatively) sudden change curious. But given the lack of any practical connection between most people and, say, horses/carriages, that really isn't surprising... and maybe that's my real point.
Then, there are the apps that start out with the carrot (software authorization), then suddenly give you the stick (telling you "We're not going to give you a software key. If you want to replace your computer, you have to go out and buy a dongle to reauthorize this.")
I'm going to leave it to others to dissect your larger point(s) and to weigh validity of your perspective (say, as to whether or not semi-serious copy protection really is treating buyers like "criminals" or not).
I am, though, going to go a bit off-topic and just comment on your use of "carrots" and "sticks" as if those were separate things. I know the meme gets used a lot that way, but it's simply incorrect. The concept goes like this: you've got a horse tied up to a wagon, and you're having trouble getting it to move ahead. You know your horse loves carrots, since most of them do. So, you use a long stick and some string to suspend a carrot out in front of the horse - essentially as a lure. The stick is mounted in the horse's harness, so when the horse moves forward to try to reach the carrot, so does the stick (and thus, so does the carrot). The carrot remains just out of reach, but is right there as an incentive for the horse to move ahead.
Thus, you've got "carrots and sticks" not as separate things (one good, one bad), and not as some bait-and-switch or prize and punishment... rather, the carrot and the stick, used together, form a system that's used to provide incentive or a focus for action.
For some reason, in the past couple of years (by my observation), people have started referring to the carrot as some sort of reward, and the stick as some sort of opposite. That's not how the concept goes, and the fact that people don't get it is just more evidence that a lot of the source material for our conversational idioms is so removed from daily experience that people simply stop bothering to think about what they're actually saying. It's sort of like "could care less" when you really mean "couldn't care less" (the opposite!) - it's just uttered without any real thought given to it.
But there's plenty where the anachronistic analogy lapses come from... like, "flash in the pan." People say it, and have no idea why they say it (two contenders: someone panning for gold in a creek may see a flash of metallic reflection in their pan, and immediately assume they've hit it big, only to discover that their treasure was a very fleeting thing (and thus not the hoped for riches, but only a flash in the pan)... or, the "pan" is the external tray on a flint-lock gun that is hit with sparks when a pull of the trigger releases the lock. The fine powder in the pan "flashes," creating noise and smoke... but if its ignition doesn't actually fire off the main charge in the barrel of the gun, you get no shot, and have only had a flash in the pan.
But you say it today, and kids will probably think it has something to do with cooking or interactive animation running on their web browser.
I mean, "Judge strikes down..." ? Do we have to use violent words like "strike?" There are teenagers reading this web site, and just seeing words like that could cause them to become violent.
I predict this story will go through the roof!
on
Buy Low, Spam High
·
· Score: 2, Funny
It's set to explode!
Will it be a big mover?
Don't let the inside investors beat you to it!
Ugh. It simply astonished me that language like that, which is repeated over and over again, verbatim, moves enough people to bid up stocks to the point that someone can actually see gains that matter enought (without getting them arrested instantly).
Amazing. But, 4%? Unless you're doing a LOT of it, couldn't you just mow lawns or something and make the same money while also being less fat?
The connotation is that someone signed onto a machine somewhere and at the command prompt, typed "design_car -fast -diesel", and poof, there's the design.
It's a human-designed car, designed by humans using computers (as they have for decades), and no pencils this time. TFA goes on and on about all the people on the team and the work they did, and that's great. So, what's with the headline and summary?
The purpose of copyright law is to maximize the amount of public domain material.
But you're not really stating that correctly. The purpose is to motivate the creation of more material, for a richer creative landscape that the public can enjoy. That's not the same as "public domain." Ultimately, it becomes public domain. But it's not being created FOR public domain, it's being protected for use by the artist as the artist sees fit. For a while, anyway. Yes - reasonable people can and should debate how many years is rational, in terms of retaining your rights to your own work. If I spend the last five years of my life creating something of great value, as an asset for my family, and I get hit by a bus, I'd expect them to have control of it in my stead for some period of time. 100 years or so? Probably not. But if it's valuable to have more people creating, then copyrights specifically help in that regard.
Speaking of connected to reality, you do see the difference between physical objects such as hard drives or flat panel displays and software, yes? That difference is cruical to understanding the arugements in play here.
I understand the differences, as well as the similarities. Innovation through competition isn't peculiar to hardware, or software, or services, or consulting, or much of anything else.
Competition creates change and exposes weaknesses and strengths beyond typos in the code. There is competition between Linux distros, too (which makes me happy about Linus's take on things, relative to RMS's), but only a few have the financial pressure to really do what the heavy commercial users need: Red Hat, Novell, etc.
To lecture those that choose to use a more proprietary model about how all code ought to be public domain (a la RMS's various ramblings) isn't any different than arguing that people who make flat panel displays should place their trade secrets, manufacturing management techniques, etc., out in front of their competition to benefit (without spending money) from all the money the originator invested in creating it in the first place. There is no difference. If someone wants their code to be seen, shared, improved, etc., by other people, that's fine. Just like a hardware design and manufacturing entity can do the same... though they'd generally be nuts to do so.
So surely you have 'total freedom of choice' as to whether to use GPLd code or not too.
Yes, I do. But guys like RMS are doing their best to create a generation of technical people that see only socialized/communal-economy frameworks as valid, and everything else as Teh Evil(tm).
I don't have to fuss over whether I use GPL'd code or not in order to grasp the message that a guy like RMS preaches. Linus is the rational one, here. RMS is imagining a fantasy of idyllic everyone-is-equally-good-at-creating scenario that can only feel warm and fuzzy in a world where the underpinnings of the entire tech scene (things like giant, $40 hard drives or $200 20-inch flat panel displays) only exist because of ruthless, private, capitalist competition to produce the best thing for each market segment at the lowest possible price. His idealogy gets to float around on top of the very thing that he claims to loathe, and that batch of mixed premises is what makes him come across like such a loon to so many other people.
I don't always agree with Linus on everything, either, but these are two different camps, and one is more connected to reality than the other.
I can see why you wouldn't bother with a rational debate on any point if that's your idea of making a point.
Astroturfing: "Formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous, grassroots behavior"
I'm not part of any public relations project, affiliated with any studio, label, trade association or other entity. My interest in protecting the copyrights to my own creative material is specifically because I'm not making it big in the sense that you're using that phrase. I do all sorts of work, some of which includes creative material that is consumed by a variety of niche audiences. I charge for that, and people pay for that. When someone else wants to benefit from my work, and decides that - after finding a way to get a close friend else they've never met to "share" it with them - they're not in the mood to pay for it, their willingness to rip it off, rather than part with a pittance to meet the price I ask for it is wrong. Period.
Do I have any expectation that any particular project can or should make it rockstar-style "big" for me? No - the market is too small. That makes it all the more important - for me and for the people that regularly pay me for my work - that I'm not driven out of doing that work by having it ripped off so frequently by people who don't themselves have the chops to do it, or the ethics to pay a beer's worth of cash for it. It's the little guy that's the most hurt by this stuff, not the big guy. But it's the "harmless" ripping off of the big guys' recordings and movies that sets the tone and the comfort level for ripping off the little guy. It's not that you can't see that - you know I'm right - you're just trying to rationalize being too cheap to pay for stuff you've found a way to get around the counter, and preaching it as some technically transformative thing in hopes that getting more people to not feel bad about doing it you'll be somehow off the hook. It's transparent as hell, and your tantrum, in response to a perfectly reasonable observation, shows I'm right. When you get out of high school and get a job, perhaps you'll understand better. Good luck with that.
Like promoting them? You can do this on the net without a label.
So, which would you rather that a Jimi-Hendrix-caliber musician spent his time doing? Spamming MySpace with promo plugs and guerilla marketing with clips wherever he can shoehorn them into hip web sites? Or, writing and recording great music? On the assumption we'd all rather see our favorite musicians being musicians, and not burning up 40 hours a week marketing online, perhaps that stuff is better left to someone who is good at that? Labels do use the net for buzz and marketing, and that's exactly why many busy musicians use a label's services to handle that work. It's not the same routine as traditional label work from 20 years ago, but it's the non-creating, non-playing, non-recording stuff that a musician (or photographer, or novelist, or filmaker) is usually very, very glad to have someone else do. To say nothing of contract work, legal crap, accounting, tour logistics, transporation, and all the rest of it.
So what do you think the proprietary vendors, RIAA, MPAA and their ilk are doing?
Come on, now. You have total freedom of choice when it comes to purchasing, or not, the work created by an artist who happens to have employed a record label (that happens to be a member of that trade association) to handle their business chores, and implement (or not) DRM or other mechanisms on the distribution of their creative work. All you have to do is not be a customer of that artist.
If you so disapprove of their choice of business partners, and that artist's thought process and personal ethics, why is it that you want them to be your entertainment? It's simple: just walk away, and go over to another artist that isn't worried about having a third party tackle their revenue and checks for them, etc. Or, only get your music from performances at bars - whatever you like. But it's not "moral warfare" for an artist to have a professional company taking care of legal, accounting, marketing, distribution, promotion, travel, technical and other tasks for them. And if you think it is, you really don't have to worry about it, because surely no one who participates in that business cycle is going to interest you as an artist anyway, right?
Briliant analogy there - morally equating the violence of rape with kids giving each other copies of sound
Completely un-brilliant way to not get the point, there. Well, actually, of course you know what the point is... that simply because some noticeable number of people do something wrong doesn't mean that we should, as a culture, just decide that it's now OK. Yes, there are objectively right and wrong things. Ripping off artists is one of those wrong things. But you know that, and know I'm right, and knew the point of the rhetorical analogy. Which means that your response is pure trollism, and an attempt to dodge the actual issue of ripping off artists - which is always what people trying to defend that practice do: change the subject because it's too uncomfortable to actually talk about what's happening.
Ah yes, the "if they think music copying is ok, then they are the ones stealing my software" argument. I notice your wording purposefully avoids music as the content produced. It is unfortunate that you are so myopic that any discussion of IP starts your knee jerking. It is the people that are closest to the issues that have the most to say, yet they are also the least rational when it comes to discussing it with others.
I avoided discussing the specific material being produced exactly because it's the principle involved, not the specific creative outlet. As it happens, the software I write is actually the least thing I'm worried about, since it all runs server-side. It's editorial/instructional material, complex illustrations/images, and other labor-intensive content that's the most commonly lifted, at least in my personal experience. All the more galling because it shows up on other web sites, in newsletters, etc. I've even seen it on speciality CDs for sale. I can grumble about some twit using it on their asinine MySpace page, but it's the twits that take, treat it as their own, and either use it to flesh out their own money-making content or simply pass it around as handouts at events, etc., that really burns. That's deliberate copyright infringement by other people trying to shoe-horn into content/topic areas that they're too lazy to creatively address on their own.
Further, because they had essentially no costs in "producing" those images, artwork, or writing, they position that ripped off content for consumption by dimly-aware end consumers who then distort the market for that material by passing around expensively-originated material as if it cost nothing, and celebrating the existence of the work without closing the loop by paying the price that the author/creator/etc asks in exchange for the material. The sense of entitlement to that piece of work (because once one person has ripped it off, everyone feels that the sin has been committed, and then they don't care) is exactly what most bugs me - and it starts with kids essentially stating that they have the right to own any performance they're ever interested in for free, just because they want it.
Recognizing those issues, and connecting the dots between the various manifestations of that sense of entitlement and lack of any shame on the subject is not irrational, and being "close" to the subject is the only way that some people will ever actually appreciate the whole picture.
Computer technology has made it possible for people to produce their own albums. The record companies are dinosours.
If that's all you think that a record label does for an artist, then you are completely uninformed and any opinion you hold on this topic is worthless. Do some homework first.
You'll notice I said "per week." You don't hang out at trendy coffee shops much, do you? One pastry and capuccino-based drink and you're looking at over $5. You do that twice day a couple times a week, or once a day five times a week, plus buying a cup for your friend once in a while, and maybe toss your change in the tip bucket for the person who foamed your milk for you: $30, easy. That's low, actually.
No, I'm not rich. But I live in an expensive county with a reasonably well-off cross section of humanity - and I see the same kids in the local Starbucks every damn day, sucking down Spend-a-ccinos.
Isn't it alarming that probably over half of all teenagers are criminals according to your legistlation?
Yes, but not in the way that you think. What's alarming is the prevailing sense of entitlement to someone else's work. The sense that if you like an artist enough, you can just make them your personal little entertainment slave by finding a way around the choice the artist has made about how to offer their work for sale.
There are places in Africa where most of the women in some villages have experienced rape. So, that makes it commonplace - no point having a law against it, then, since everyone does it, right? No. And I feel the same way about the creeping sense of entitlement that has turned kids into morally rudderless artist rapers that are getting a pass from people like you. It's a matter of principle, and there's a lot more at stake than whether or not a particular rock star makes another car payment in any given month - it's about recognizing (never mind whether you call it "infringement" or not) an act of deliberate theft when you see it... and recognizing that when you don't care if an entire generation of people grows up thinking that ripping off people they claim to respect is OK, then you're going to have a lot of other problems show up, as well.
But if I had a choice, I'd rather pay the artist than the middle manager, the T-shirt guy and the tour promoter.
Yes, artists now have all sorts of options about how to distribute what they produce. And even so, many new and very talented people survey the situation and make the choice to sign up with a recording company so that they (the label) can handle the countless business-related things that would otherwise just be a total distraction from being creative. It's an economic decision. The people who sell their music directly are being the record label, and that means that while they're netting more of the money, they're also doing much, much more work that doesn't involve making music/movies/images/books whatever. Doing the job of the publisher (accounting, marketing, legal work, distribution, taxes - all of that crap) involves time, which is worth something - usually worth a lot. What's your time worth, per hour? If you spend hundreds of hours a year (at least) being your own record label and not producing your art instead, the difference in your finances had better reflect it.
Oh - and what if you suck at all of those other things, even though you're a really good artist? Isn't it better to let a professional take care of what they're good at, and let you be creative in the way your audience actually wants? That's why there are record labels of every shape, size, and percentage-off-the-top. That's why many artists form their own labels - to offer those services to other artists. And guess what: even those that form their own labels quickly realize that there are somethings they in turn would rather hand over to a trade association so that some things can be done collectively by the whole industry... like, trying to stamp out rampant piracy by entire Asian nations, etc.
The goal isn't to "make a living", any guy who sings at the pub can do that. The goal is to "make it big" and every artist who can hold a tune thinks they have a god given right to it, if only they could get "discovered". Who puts this nonsense into their heads? Why, the labels of course.
The labels provide tools. Just like people who sell art supplies in retails stores, or who sell recording equipment to garage bands. Everyone who offers some product or service to help an artist take care of the business and logistical side of producing what they create has an interest in encouraging thoses artists to succeed. In the case of agents, recording companies, etc., they take on (and spend money on) vastly more artists that get nowhere than they do those that ever develop a large enough fan base to make in the investment worth it. Of course they egg everybody on - just like college athletic coaches always hope that somewhere in that freshman class is the next Heisman trophy winner that will bring glory to the school.
It doesn't matter, though. I have no respect for the deluded people who use only their Mom's estimation of their talent as a guide to making a career choice. They're welcome to it, but they do get what they deserve (which is to say, they don't get a living as a rock star).
Wow, did copyright infringement run over your dog or something?
No, but since everyone in my family makes their livings in the production of one form or another of things that can (and do) get ripped off, it's a very familiar topic.
But more importantly, I'm just sick to death of kids who spend $30/week on overpriced coffee, and while drinking it with their friends bitch about how their favorite performers have the gall to have their life's work sold for a dollar or less per song. I've seen my work ripped off (in ways that do not magically contribute to a larger audience for me that will eventually somehow contribute to my bottom line - that recurring notion is really BS in most circumstances), and have seen the same things happen to other writers, artists, etc. that are close to me. Of course you want more people to enjoy your creative work - but you also have to wake up to the fact that if you're a professional who spends your entire waking life producing that work, it has to pay the bills. No one owes creative people a living - that is, no one except the people who choose that artist to be their entertainer when that artist has set a price for that experience.
If you are selling your art, then you are selling your thoughts.
BS. You are selling your work to pay for your existence while you created that work. Obviously you've never worked on anyting complex, time-consuming, or that involved large numbers of people, lots of equipment, professional skills, and so on.
Do you really think that a stellar new recording of 50-seat studio orchestra's performance of symphony is nothing more that someone's thoughts? You can't be that naive, which means you are just trolling, and badly.
At some point in the process you are just pleased as hell that anybody cares at all...
Spoken like someone who's pretty sure that would really want your work. That's fine, if that's how you feel. Many people with an urge to create something as a form of other people's entertainment take a while to realize that they're not one of the truly talented, dedicated people whose work will really be sought out.
A law may say that its theft to listen/read/watch your creativity uninvited, but laws also once valued some people at a fraction of the value of others. Laws are just constructs of the general consensus, and that consensus is changing.
And some laws make sense. Ironically, you've juxtaposed exactly the two most perfect examples: you're alluding to the days of slavery, while at the same time inferring that it's perfectly reasonable to make a hardworking artist your own private little entertainment slave. How enlightened of you!
Then, finally, show a music executive, laughing, having lunch at some expensive restaurant, drinking fine wine, getting some young artist to sign on the dotted line. "Copyright Infringement" [fade to black] "It's NOT theft."
You've got the wrong image, there. You need footage of a teenager actually getting to meet his all-time favorite talent. You know, right there in the green room, for a one-on-one with, say... I don't know, Green Day or Avril Lavigne. The teenager says to Green Day, "Dudes! You guys totally rock. You're like the soundtrack of my life - I listen to you all the time, and I really can't wait for that next CD you're working on. I know you've been working on it all year and everything, but you won't mind if I just rip my copy off, right? I mean, I love you guys, just not enough to actually pay you what you're asking for your work. You know, a buck a song is totally unfair to me, personally, even though I want you to entertain me even more in the future, cuz you guys just totally kill with your songs about The Man and everything. Hey, are you going to eat that extra back-stage food? One of those club sandwiches would go great with my $3.75 half-caffe-double-shot-no-whip-skinny-iced-latte."
Slashdot Mirror
if you can't differentiate "suit" and "suite" based on context, go learn/speak a more rigid language like latin
You're not flaming, just missing the point.
Yes, word use changes - but the meaning of the things those words are used to represent do not. When people conflate to similar words to one word, and then use that one less-articulate, less-informing word, one of two things happens. Either they have to them work harder to provide context, or meaning (clarity, etc) is lost.
So when someone says "I can't wait to get my new suit," and you can't tell if they're talking about clothing, a room full of furniture, or new office space, it's just that much harder to communicate. It's not pronounciation I care about, it's the erosion of clarity and the constant shrinking of working vocabulary size (and the deadening of cognition that goes with it).
Beware those rural folk. My inlaws are rural-folk, and abuse language and commonly-understood analogies on daily basis.
You are, of course, completely correct about this. Some folks I know from rural PA simply cannot process some common terms. Less in the analogy vein, but more in the "not getting it" vein, they have a completely random - but always maddening - way of mixing up the words "suit" and "suite." Usually, they err on the side of pronouncing them both "suit." I'm afraid I have to bite my tongue pretty regularly to keep the peace. So, you're right, certainly about that artifact of semi-isolated language use, as seen these days mostly in quieter rural areas.
: CARROT AND STICK - Yes, this phrase has been discussed here previously. I thought the origin of this expression was pretty clear. But it turns out there are two schools of thought - 1. carrot ON a stick (a carrot dangling on a string on a stick before a stubborn mule) and 2. carrot and/or stick (alternating punishment and reward).
You are school 1 obviously, but 2 seems valid too, and the way I have mostly heard it used.
I guess my point is that, having grown up around plenty of rural folks - including people who keep horses and have driven wagon teams and carriages - I've heard the "school 1" usage for over 40 years. But I have noticed the school 2 usage very recently popping up in more common/media usage, and found that (relatively) sudden change curious. But given the lack of any practical connection between most people and, say, horses/carriages, that really isn't surprising... and maybe that's my real point.
Then, there are the apps that start out with the carrot (software authorization), then suddenly give you the stick (telling you "We're not going to give you a software key. If you want to replace your computer, you have to go out and buy a dongle to reauthorize this.")
I'm going to leave it to others to dissect your larger point(s) and to weigh validity of your perspective (say, as to whether or not semi-serious copy protection really is treating buyers like "criminals" or not).
I am, though, going to go a bit off-topic and just comment on your use of "carrots" and "sticks" as if those were separate things. I know the meme gets used a lot that way, but it's simply incorrect. The concept goes like this: you've got a horse tied up to a wagon, and you're having trouble getting it to move ahead. You know your horse loves carrots, since most of them do. So, you use a long stick and some string to suspend a carrot out in front of the horse - essentially as a lure. The stick is mounted in the horse's harness, so when the horse moves forward to try to reach the carrot, so does the stick (and thus, so does the carrot). The carrot remains just out of reach, but is right there as an incentive for the horse to move ahead.
Thus, you've got "carrots and sticks" not as separate things (one good, one bad), and not as some bait-and-switch or prize and punishment... rather, the carrot and the stick, used together, form a system that's used to provide incentive or a focus for action.
For some reason, in the past couple of years (by my observation), people have started referring to the carrot as some sort of reward, and the stick as some sort of opposite. That's not how the concept goes, and the fact that people don't get it is just more evidence that a lot of the source material for our conversational idioms is so removed from daily experience that people simply stop bothering to think about what they're actually saying. It's sort of like "could care less" when you really mean "couldn't care less" (the opposite!) - it's just uttered without any real thought given to it.
But there's plenty where the anachronistic analogy lapses come from... like, "flash in the pan." People say it, and have no idea why they say it (two contenders: someone panning for gold in a creek may see a flash of metallic reflection in their pan, and immediately assume they've hit it big, only to discover that their treasure was a very fleeting thing (and thus not the hoped for riches, but only a flash in the pan)... or, the "pan" is the external tray on a flint-lock gun that is hit with sparks when a pull of the trigger releases the lock. The fine powder in the pan "flashes," creating noise and smoke... but if its ignition doesn't actually fire off the main charge in the barrel of the gun, you get no shot, and have only had a flash in the pan.
But you say it today, and kids will probably think it has something to do with cooking or interactive animation running on their web browser.
or
to help out with the communication a bit.
Really. Try it! No extra charge.
I mean, "Judge strikes down..." ? Do we have to use violent words like "strike?" There are teenagers reading this web site, and just seeing words like that could cause them to become violent.
It's set to explode!
Will it be a big mover?
Don't let the inside investors beat you to it!
Ugh. It simply astonished me that language like that, which is repeated over and over again, verbatim, moves enough people to bid up stocks to the point that someone can actually see gains that matter enought (without getting them arrested instantly).
Amazing. But, 4%? Unless you're doing a LOT of it, couldn't you just mow lawns or something and make the same money while also being less fat?
The connotation is that someone signed onto a machine somewhere and at the command prompt, typed "design_car -fast -diesel", and poof, there's the design.
It's a human-designed car, designed by humans using computers (as they have for decades), and no pencils this time. TFA goes on and on about all the people on the team and the work they did, and that's great. So, what's with the headline and summary?
The purpose of copyright law is to maximize the amount of public domain material.
But you're not really stating that correctly. The purpose is to motivate the creation of more material, for a richer creative landscape that the public can enjoy. That's not the same as "public domain." Ultimately, it becomes public domain. But it's not being created FOR public domain, it's being protected for use by the artist as the artist sees fit. For a while, anyway. Yes - reasonable people can and should debate how many years is rational, in terms of retaining your rights to your own work. If I spend the last five years of my life creating something of great value, as an asset for my family, and I get hit by a bus, I'd expect them to have control of it in my stead for some period of time. 100 years or so? Probably not. But if it's valuable to have more people creating, then copyrights specifically help in that regard.
Speaking of connected to reality, you do see the difference between physical objects such as hard drives or flat panel displays and software, yes? That difference is cruical to understanding the arugements in play here.
I understand the differences, as well as the similarities. Innovation through competition isn't peculiar to hardware, or software, or services, or consulting, or much of anything else.
Competition creates change and exposes weaknesses and strengths beyond typos in the code. There is competition between Linux distros, too (which makes me happy about Linus's take on things, relative to RMS's), but only a few have the financial pressure to really do what the heavy commercial users need: Red Hat, Novell, etc.
To lecture those that choose to use a more proprietary model about how all code ought to be public domain (a la RMS's various ramblings) isn't any different than arguing that people who make flat panel displays should place their trade secrets, manufacturing management techniques, etc., out in front of their competition to benefit (without spending money) from all the money the originator invested in creating it in the first place. There is no difference. If someone wants their code to be seen, shared, improved, etc., by other people, that's fine. Just like a hardware design and manufacturing entity can do the same... though they'd generally be nuts to do so.
So surely you have 'total freedom of choice' as to whether to use GPLd code or not too.
Yes, I do. But guys like RMS are doing their best to create a generation of technical people that see only socialized/communal-economy frameworks as valid, and everything else as Teh Evil(tm).
I don't have to fuss over whether I use GPL'd code or not in order to grasp the message that a guy like RMS preaches. Linus is the rational one, here. RMS is imagining a fantasy of idyllic everyone-is-equally-good-at-creating scenario that can only feel warm and fuzzy in a world where the underpinnings of the entire tech scene (things like giant, $40 hard drives or $200 20-inch flat panel displays) only exist because of ruthless, private, capitalist competition to produce the best thing for each market segment at the lowest possible price. His idealogy gets to float around on top of the very thing that he claims to loathe, and that batch of mixed premises is what makes him come across like such a loon to so many other people.
I don't always agree with Linus on everything, either, but these are two different camps, and one is more connected to reality than the other.
I can see why you wouldn't bother with a rational debate on any point if that's your idea of making a point.
Astroturfing: "Formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous, grassroots behavior"
I'm not part of any public relations project, affiliated with any studio, label, trade association or other entity. My interest in protecting the copyrights to my own creative material is specifically because I'm not making it big in the sense that you're using that phrase. I do all sorts of work, some of which includes creative material that is consumed by a variety of niche audiences. I charge for that, and people pay for that. When someone else wants to benefit from my work, and decides that - after finding a way to get a close friend else they've never met to "share" it with them - they're not in the mood to pay for it, their willingness to rip it off, rather than part with a pittance to meet the price I ask for it is wrong. Period.
Do I have any expectation that any particular project can or should make it rockstar-style "big" for me? No - the market is too small. That makes it all the more important - for me and for the people that regularly pay me for my work - that I'm not driven out of doing that work by having it ripped off so frequently by people who don't themselves have the chops to do it, or the ethics to pay a beer's worth of cash for it. It's the little guy that's the most hurt by this stuff, not the big guy. But it's the "harmless" ripping off of the big guys' recordings and movies that sets the tone and the comfort level for ripping off the little guy. It's not that you can't see that - you know I'm right - you're just trying to rationalize being too cheap to pay for stuff you've found a way to get around the counter, and preaching it as some technically transformative thing in hopes that getting more people to not feel bad about doing it you'll be somehow off the hook. It's transparent as hell, and your tantrum, in response to a perfectly reasonable observation, shows I'm right. When you get out of high school and get a job, perhaps you'll understand better. Good luck with that.
Like promoting them? You can do this on the net without a label.
So, which would you rather that a Jimi-Hendrix-caliber musician spent his time doing? Spamming MySpace with promo plugs and guerilla marketing with clips wherever he can shoehorn them into hip web sites? Or, writing and recording great music? On the assumption we'd all rather see our favorite musicians being musicians, and not burning up 40 hours a week marketing online, perhaps that stuff is better left to someone who is good at that? Labels do use the net for buzz and marketing, and that's exactly why many busy musicians use a label's services to handle that work. It's not the same routine as traditional label work from 20 years ago, but it's the non-creating, non-playing, non-recording stuff that a musician (or photographer, or novelist, or filmaker) is usually very, very glad to have someone else do. To say nothing of contract work, legal crap, accounting, tour logistics, transporation, and all the rest of it.
So what do you think the proprietary vendors, RIAA, MPAA and their ilk are doing?
Come on, now. You have total freedom of choice when it comes to purchasing, or not, the work created by an artist who happens to have employed a record label (that happens to be a member of that trade association) to handle their business chores, and implement (or not) DRM or other mechanisms on the distribution of their creative work. All you have to do is not be a customer of that artist.
If you so disapprove of their choice of business partners, and that artist's thought process and personal ethics, why is it that you want them to be your entertainment? It's simple: just walk away, and go over to another artist that isn't worried about having a third party tackle their revenue and checks for them, etc. Or, only get your music from performances at bars - whatever you like. But it's not "moral warfare" for an artist to have a professional company taking care of legal, accounting, marketing, distribution, promotion, travel, technical and other tasks for them. And if you think it is, you really don't have to worry about it, because surely no one who participates in that business cycle is going to interest you as an artist anyway, right?
Briliant analogy there - morally equating the violence of rape with kids giving each other copies of sound
Completely un-brilliant way to not get the point, there. Well, actually, of course you know what the point is... that simply because some noticeable number of people do something wrong doesn't mean that we should, as a culture, just decide that it's now OK. Yes, there are objectively right and wrong things. Ripping off artists is one of those wrong things. But you know that, and know I'm right, and knew the point of the rhetorical analogy. Which means that your response is pure trollism, and an attempt to dodge the actual issue of ripping off artists - which is always what people trying to defend that practice do: change the subject because it's too uncomfortable to actually talk about what's happening.
Ah yes, the "if they think music copying is ok, then they are the ones stealing my software" argument. I notice your wording purposefully avoids music as the content produced. It is unfortunate that you are so myopic that any discussion of IP starts your knee jerking. It is the people that are closest to the issues that have the most to say, yet they are also the least rational when it comes to discussing it with others.
I avoided discussing the specific material being produced exactly because it's the principle involved, not the specific creative outlet. As it happens, the software I write is actually the least thing I'm worried about, since it all runs server-side. It's editorial/instructional material, complex illustrations/images, and other labor-intensive content that's the most commonly lifted, at least in my personal experience. All the more galling because it shows up on other web sites, in newsletters, etc. I've even seen it on speciality CDs for sale. I can grumble about some twit using it on their asinine MySpace page, but it's the twits that take, treat it as their own, and either use it to flesh out their own money-making content or simply pass it around as handouts at events, etc., that really burns. That's deliberate copyright infringement by other people trying to shoe-horn into content/topic areas that they're too lazy to creatively address on their own.
Further, because they had essentially no costs in "producing" those images, artwork, or writing, they position that ripped off content for consumption by dimly-aware end consumers who then distort the market for that material by passing around expensively-originated material as if it cost nothing, and celebrating the existence of the work without closing the loop by paying the price that the author/creator/etc asks in exchange for the material. The sense of entitlement to that piece of work (because once one person has ripped it off, everyone feels that the sin has been committed, and then they don't care) is exactly what most bugs me - and it starts with kids essentially stating that they have the right to own any performance they're ever interested in for free, just because they want it.
Recognizing those issues, and connecting the dots between the various manifestations of that sense of entitlement and lack of any shame on the subject is not irrational, and being "close" to the subject is the only way that some people will ever actually appreciate the whole picture.
Computer technology has made it possible for people to produce their own albums. The record companies are dinosours.
If that's all you think that a record label does for an artist, then you are completely uninformed and any opinion you hold on this topic is worthless. Do some homework first.
Thirty dollars worth of coffee?? WTF?
You'll notice I said "per week." You don't hang out at trendy coffee shops much, do you? One pastry and capuccino-based drink and you're looking at over $5. You do that twice day a couple times a week, or once a day five times a week, plus buying a cup for your friend once in a while, and maybe toss your change in the tip bucket for the person who foamed your milk for you: $30, easy. That's low, actually.
No, I'm not rich. But I live in an expensive county with a reasonably well-off cross section of humanity - and I see the same kids in the local Starbucks every damn day, sucking down Spend-a-ccinos.
Isn't it alarming that probably over half of all teenagers are criminals according to your legistlation?
Yes, but not in the way that you think. What's alarming is the prevailing sense of entitlement to someone else's work. The sense that if you like an artist enough, you can just make them your personal little entertainment slave by finding a way around the choice the artist has made about how to offer their work for sale.
There are places in Africa where most of the women in some villages have experienced rape. So, that makes it commonplace - no point having a law against it, then, since everyone does it, right? No. And I feel the same way about the creeping sense of entitlement that has turned kids into morally rudderless artist rapers that are getting a pass from people like you. It's a matter of principle, and there's a lot more at stake than whether or not a particular rock star makes another car payment in any given month - it's about recognizing (never mind whether you call it "infringement" or not) an act of deliberate theft when you see it... and recognizing that when you don't care if an entire generation of people grows up thinking that ripping off people they claim to respect is OK, then you're going to have a lot of other problems show up, as well.
But if I had a choice, I'd rather pay the artist than the middle manager, the T-shirt guy and the tour promoter.
Yes, artists now have all sorts of options about how to distribute what they produce. And even so, many new and very talented people survey the situation and make the choice to sign up with a recording company so that they (the label) can handle the countless business-related things that would otherwise just be a total distraction from being creative. It's an economic decision. The people who sell their music directly are being the record label, and that means that while they're netting more of the money, they're also doing much, much more work that doesn't involve making music/movies/images/books whatever. Doing the job of the publisher (accounting, marketing, legal work, distribution, taxes - all of that crap) involves time, which is worth something - usually worth a lot. What's your time worth, per hour? If you spend hundreds of hours a year (at least) being your own record label and not producing your art instead, the difference in your finances had better reflect it.
Oh - and what if you suck at all of those other things, even though you're a really good artist? Isn't it better to let a professional take care of what they're good at, and let you be creative in the way your audience actually wants? That's why there are record labels of every shape, size, and percentage-off-the-top. That's why many artists form their own labels - to offer those services to other artists. And guess what: even those that form their own labels quickly realize that there are somethings they in turn would rather hand over to a trade association so that some things can be done collectively by the whole industry... like, trying to stamp out rampant piracy by entire Asian nations, etc.
The goal isn't to "make a living", any guy who sings at the pub can do that. The goal is to "make it big" and every artist who can hold a tune thinks they have a god given right to it, if only they could get "discovered". Who puts this nonsense into their heads? Why, the labels of course.
The labels provide tools. Just like people who sell art supplies in retails stores, or who sell recording equipment to garage bands. Everyone who offers some product or service to help an artist take care of the business and logistical side of producing what they create has an interest in encouraging thoses artists to succeed. In the case of agents, recording companies, etc., they take on (and spend money on) vastly more artists that get nowhere than they do those that ever develop a large enough fan base to make in the investment worth it. Of course they egg everybody on - just like college athletic coaches always hope that somewhere in that freshman class is the next Heisman trophy winner that will bring glory to the school.
It doesn't matter, though. I have no respect for the deluded people who use only their Mom's estimation of their talent as a guide to making a career choice. They're welcome to it, but they do get what they deserve (which is to say, they don't get a living as a rock star).
The artists get paid the same regardless in many cases.
BZZZT! Wrong! The artist does not get paid their royalty on a CD that someone rips instead of actually buying. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
Wow, did copyright infringement run over your dog or something?
No, but since everyone in my family makes their livings in the production of one form or another of things that can (and do) get ripped off, it's a very familiar topic.
But more importantly, I'm just sick to death of kids who spend $30/week on overpriced coffee, and while drinking it with their friends bitch about how their favorite performers have the gall to have their life's work sold for a dollar or less per song. I've seen my work ripped off (in ways that do not magically contribute to a larger audience for me that will eventually somehow contribute to my bottom line - that recurring notion is really BS in most circumstances), and have seen the same things happen to other writers, artists, etc. that are close to me. Of course you want more people to enjoy your creative work - but you also have to wake up to the fact that if you're a professional who spends your entire waking life producing that work, it has to pay the bills. No one owes creative people a living - that is, no one except the people who choose that artist to be their entertainer when that artist has set a price for that experience.
If you are selling your art, then you are selling your thoughts.
BS. You are selling your work to pay for your existence while you created that work. Obviously you've never worked on anyting complex, time-consuming, or that involved large numbers of people, lots of equipment, professional skills, and so on.
Do you really think that a stellar new recording of 50-seat studio orchestra's performance of symphony is nothing more that someone's thoughts? You can't be that naive, which means you are just trolling, and badly.
At some point in the process you are just pleased as hell that anybody cares at all...
Spoken like someone who's pretty sure that would really want your work. That's fine, if that's how you feel. Many people with an urge to create something as a form of other people's entertainment take a while to realize that they're not one of the truly talented, dedicated people whose work will really be sought out.
A law may say that its theft to listen/read/watch your creativity uninvited, but laws also once valued some people at a fraction of the value of others. Laws are just constructs of the general consensus, and that consensus is changing.
And some laws make sense. Ironically, you've juxtaposed exactly the two most perfect examples: you're alluding to the days of slavery, while at the same time inferring that it's perfectly reasonable to make a hardworking artist your own private little entertainment slave. How enlightened of you!
Then, finally, show a music executive, laughing, having lunch at some expensive restaurant, drinking fine wine, getting some young artist to sign on the dotted line. "Copyright Infringement" [fade to black] "It's NOT theft."
"
You've got the wrong image, there. You need footage of a teenager actually getting to meet his all-time favorite talent. You know, right there in the green room, for a one-on-one with, say... I don't know, Green Day or Avril Lavigne. The teenager says to Green Day, "Dudes! You guys totally rock. You're like the soundtrack of my life - I listen to you all the time, and I really can't wait for that next CD you're working on. I know you've been working on it all year and everything, but you won't mind if I just rip my copy off, right? I mean, I love you guys, just not enough to actually pay you what you're asking for your work. You know, a buck a song is totally unfair to me, personally, even though I want you to entertain me even more in the future, cuz you guys just totally kill with your songs about The Man and everything. Hey, are you going to eat that extra back-stage food? One of those club sandwiches would go great with my $3.75 half-caffe-double-shot-no-whip-skinny-iced-latte.