Actually it has been suggested that the reason man started cooking food was simply to recreate the warmth of a freshly killed animal, not because they were afraid of injesting a little blood.
I think it's more likely that when lightning strikes a buffalo, you can smell that all-natural bar-b-cue from at least a mile away. Of course burned hair sort of gets in the way of the medium-rare tenderloin.
argue that a simple hunter-gather culture can be more prosperous
Well, some argue that the world is flat, or that evolution doesn't exist, etc. Certainly I may spend more hours working than Mr. Hunter Gatherer did in a given week... but Mr. Hunter Gatherer would be amazed that at my age I'm still alive. I'd be the tribe's ancient elder guy at anything older than 35.
I don't mean to suggest that the hands-on enjoyment of technology, in and of itself, is the mark of "prosperity" (I know people who feel rich and fulfilled at the sound of their kids' laughter). Of course, those same people would feel non-stop stress, and be very aware of the relative poverty of their situation if they had to worry about the same level of capricious disease and predatory threat that Mr. Hunter Gatherer and his clan faced. When a cut finger was a routine vector for a fatal infection, the prosperous use of free time would have been cold comfort indeed.
destroying the foundations for self-rule
But self rule in those areas (as well as in Iraq) prior to the formation of larger colonies/future-countries was pretty much limited to small territories and relatively small clan/tribal groups with homogenous cultures. It would be foolish to pretend that those groups didn't routinely fight over resources, or even essentially eliminate one another on occasion. Most of the inertia from those periods has survived the colonial phase, and such rivalries as were already there are back, but with modern communication/propaganda, left-over weapons, oil money, and now with intruding external ideologies (like Islmo-fascism) that just pour gasoline on the fires.
Certainly those nations with a more exploitive bent are delighted to have new stuff to steal and a captive consumer base. That's colonialism in its essence.
So, who are you referring to? Come on, out with it.
The reason most developing nations can't seem to shake off poverty is economic and political damage from centuries of colonialism
Surely you're not saying that, say, Niger (currently starving itself to death) would be a picture of high tech prosperity if only the French, Brits, and Germans had stayed out of Africa? Or, would increasingly prosperous places like Cameroon be.. what? more efficient in their land use, even farther along in their use of the internet and cell phones, using more fuel efficient urban buses, and cooking up less exotic "bush meat" in their restaurants if... the Germans hadn't set up shop there, and then lost it to the French? And all of those folks from Cameroon that work their asses off so they can go to college in Paris, or come to the US to get into high-tech careers... they'd prefer to have had their piece of Africa, what, left in the condition it was in 200 years ago? I'm not suggesting, at all, that the people living there don't have the intellectual capacity to have passed through the industrial revolution and into the info age on their own... just that they weren't already a couple centuries into the use of printing presses and other cultural accelerators as seen in Europe at that point. Imperial excesses (such as slavery) not withstanding, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that some cultures have had the last two hundred years of colonial/post-colonial circumstances weigh more heavily on them, and some have taken it and run with it... depending mostly on how those cultures functioned in the first place.
As for "globalization," I suppose I'm feeling the same way. Those cultures that are oriented around a more entrepenurial way of life are delighted to have more resources and new customers. Those that are desparate for any kind of work but don't have a local understanding of how to best wheel and deal are going to take longer to get that woven into their culture. But it doesn't seem to take them long to decide they want the fruit of the world's marketplace, so the other half of that equation will come along at some point where it hasn't already started.
Calling an opponent a "hypocrite" when the argument is not about that opponent's own behavior is not a valid form of argumentation
Well, sure. But indicating what is, and is not hypocrisy as used in the debate at hand... that's reasonable. And calling the people who behave hypocritically what they are is, well, reasonable.
The behavior of millions of people is the heart of the matter, since it is what has made this entire issue an issue at all. And when some of the defenders of that behavior decide to address semantics, rather than the actual behavior itself, then they're being at least sleazily distracting, and if they themselves are part of the problem, then they are indeed hypocrites. Follow the thread and you'll see we're not talking IP law or copyright statutes, but about the tactics used by people arguing those topics.
Wow, I've never seen such 1) exaggeration, 2) misunderstanding of the word "militance"
Before they can go into contract talks with a major label, they must sign another contract
So, so not true. There's a saying among musicians (in Nashville, for example): "Say yes to everything, and sign nothing." The days of Billy Joel being so naive that he loses the income from the first third of his career are over. Musicians have never (thanks to industry message boards, "how not to get screwed" books written by experienced artists, and so on) had more resources than they do today to do two things: strike a smart deal with a publisher, and/or avoid traditional publishers. Think how many times you hear about artists starting their own label so that they can run things the way they want.
they have no other way because their industry is under the vicelike grip of a cartel
How? What is actually stopping artists from starting their own labels? In fact, I'm sure that these people would be very surprised to hear that they're part of an evil cartel. And the people running smaller, independent labels that have been surprised at how much business they're doing probably aren't paying their cartel dues, despite what you say.
denies kids their futures and sometimes their meals by sueing them and their families for a few measly songs which they could easily record off the radio to the same effect
And this is because these kid's parents weren't intelligent enough to remind kids not to take stuff they're not entitled to, or because the kids you're referring to are totally aware that what they're doing is illegal, and are just deciding to take the chance they won't get caught? Whether they can or cannot "just get it off the radio" isn't germaine. Using P2P systems, we're talking about spreading around bit-for-bit exact copies of the product that the artist wants to sell, and deliberately avoiding paying for it. It's simple: people say they like the musician, they want the music, and despite the fact that the musician is set up to sell their work, some of their "fans" decide to just rip it off and save a couple of bucks. Part of that deal is the risk that someone may actually call them on it, and even prosecute.
They don't show integrity
What are you talking about? They couldn't be simpler, or more honest. They say: "Here, enjoy the music that I spent the last year of my life making. It will cost you a dollar. If that's too much, then please go find a musician that doesn't want to charge you." How much simpler could that be?
treat me like a thief
Do you think that a pizza shop is treating you like a thief when they have you pay before they serve you your pizza? Does a gas station treat you like a thief when they ask you to use your PIN when paying at the pump? Is a movie theater treating you like a thief when they have you buy and show a ticket before you sit down in front in front of their big screen? Is a retailer that keeps their MP3 players in a locked case treating you like a thief? No, these people are all reacting to the reality that there really are thieves, and lots of them. So they have to react to that reality. Do you leave your car unlocked when you park it downtown? Fair use, by the way, doesn't mean that the person who creates the material in quesiton is under any obligation to make it easy for people to create bit-for-bit copies of their work without their support. If you really must have a perfect copy of something for a project that cannot exist without getting around such DRM as may be involved, then get the artist you're copying from involved. But we both know you're not talking about fair use. You're talking about "sharing" the file in an unlimited way, and about your own inabilit
Careful there, cowboy. All that usin' reason n' logic n' whatnot is likely to git you run right out Slashdottown.
Also, you know the rules: no using words like "disigenuous" actually correctly, and in the proper context here on slashdot. What were you thinking, man?
Anyway, thanks for having a clue and calling a twit a twit.
On the global scale, you and I and everyone reading this are disgustingly, wastefully, rich.
But we also manage to produce more food on an acre of land, burn less rainforest per head of cattle, and kill fewer moms during childbirth than do most people in the developing world. "Disgustingly" rich? How do you figure? Disgusting to whom? Surely you're not saying that some poor farmer in Cambodia would be disgusted to have running potable water, children free of avoidable diseases, and an easy way to stay in touch with his mom, back in the old village?
About half the world lives on $2 a day or less
Sure, and even adjusting for inflation, so did much of the US even just a few decades ago. Is that any reason to back away from developing technologies that help us live well, long, and healthily while using fewer resources? Modern water treatment isn't wasteful. Crapping in your only nearby river, out of which you also drink, thus poisoning your kids: that's wasteful (um, and disgusting). You make it sound like we should all lively poorly so long as anyone else is. How about instead we all live as efficiently and well as we can so that we can continue to produce the largess that allows us to ship trained professionals, billions in supplies and support, and some hope to places that are learning how to live better? We've been on the planet, more or less in our current human format/framework, for tens of thousands of years. Learning how to live outside of the hunter/gatherer slash/burn mode has only happened - in the scheme of things - more or less earlier this morning. I empathize with the family still living the way the entire species has for the last 10,000 years... but I also recognize that he and his family have probably had smallpox vaccinations, and can probably take their kids to a clinic where antibiotics are available to cure what would otherwise kill them, and cut off any chance of future literacy and conservation-oriented farming and industry.
I'm reminded of a great scene in - was it Animal House? - where one of the sorority sisters planning a social event throws her hands up and says "I don't know anyone can have a dance when there are hungry people in the world!" The cure for those problems is cultural, not strictly financial. And when we dare talk about helping to change the culture in a place that can't seem to shake off poverty and disease, then we're evil for that, too. *sigh*
Artists make their money through merchandising, touring, and other transactions which have nothing to do with CD sales
Really? 100% of them? 100% of their income? What about arists that don't tour, and don't bother with t-shirt sales? And further, why do you care if an artist chooses to use a separate company to handle her business dealings, and carry all of the overhead of studio time, distribution, etc? It's a choice. There's absolutely no reason that an artist can't go another direction, and many do. But what you're saying is that artists are too dumb to know what they're doing (those poor, poor dumb artists), and that only you know what's best for them, which includes not paying them what they're asking for their recordings.
Artists make money through multiple channels, and recording sales is one of them. If you don't like that an artist has chosen that route, then don't pretend that you like that artist.
As for your "paraphrasing" of me, you're completely incorrect. I didn't say that "everyone" who downloads is making up excuses. Just the ones who do so against the artists' expressed wishes. The millions of downloads from places like iTunes indicates that there are still plenty of people left who understand that to be a fan of an artist means actually taking that person at their word, and showing a little integrity in the process.
Shall I "paraphrase" you now? "Musicians are too dumb to know what's good for them. They should stick to traveling to bars 200 nights a year, and selling t-shirts. I will show them how much I pity them by not following them from bar to bar, but instead by enjoying a nice, digital recording of their work that I've elected not to pay for, even though that's what the band has asked that I do. I love that band! But they're so dumb, they need my help to see that they can't make good businesses decisions. I'll teach them how to make better decisions by ripping them off. They don't need the $0.85 they'd make if I buy download their CD legally - they need my sage advice! That, and the advice of 1000 people I don't know who will also be making copies of what I just got without paying. Then they'll be smart and stop trying charge for their work! Think how much happier they'll be, and how much better their future recordings will be once they're spending all of their time in bars! Of course, copyrights and whatnot should still apply to t-shirt logos, since I wouldn't want some third party to "share" the band's print artwork and sell t-shirts that don't profit the band, because then they'd be getting ripped off... oh, wait."
Sorry, but in world terms, if you have those things, you are rich
I think I beg to differ. Refrigeration can be found in every country in the world. They even have small propane-powered units that are used in jungle medical clincs. Likewise with antibiotics, etc.
Sure, most people living in rural India don't have their own personal cell phone yet, but in most developing places, they're now skipping right over land lines and going straight to wireless. I don't think that you can describe pretty much all of Europe, huge swaths of central and south America, north America, more or less all of the population centers of the Pacific rim, Russia, and pockets of humanity everywhere else, to be "rich." That's more like "normal." Better to describe those remaining places that do not have electricity as "developing" or just plain "poor." Here's hoping that the economics in those places catches up with everyone else, sooner rather than later, but I don't think that the most basic uses of refrigeration (as the obvious example, in food warehouses, ice making facilities, hospitals) are in any way exotic, even in most third-world places. Sure, right in the middle Niger, or in the nomadic stretches of other parts of Africa, or in the still purely locally agrarian spots in India or Pakistan or Xhrtfzistan it's just simply going to be a while. But that makes those spots poor, rather than making Mexico City, Younde Camaroon, or Pittsburgh "rich."
The point is, when you essentially offer some coaching to precisely those people who are pirating stuff, it just smells bad to the wider audience. And obviously, if it wasn't going on, on a huge scale, there wouldn't be any interest in trotting purchase records into a suit in the first place. Believe me, I'd hate, with a passion, to get dragged into a suit just so I could explain that I use a couple hundred blank CDs every month doing database backups.
Spending that half trillion dollars will help the economy no matter how we spend it, so why not do things that uplift the spirit (to be cheesey)?
It's certainly not cheesy to think that the actions (and expenditures) of the government should, when possible, be uplifing and even inspiring. After all, the government must build bridges and buildings (which should be beautiful, or at least not ugly), must produce material in all sorts of media (which should be compelling and esthetically pleasing, and well written), and so on. There's no question that the space program, for example, is an opportunity for a wee bit of drama, and adventure.
That being said, there are people (I'm one of them, for example) that routinely find the duties, and actions of our miliary men and women to by inherently uplifting. Witness their tremendous performance in the wake of the recent tsunami disaster - no other entity could have been on site that quickly, with that much materiel, logistical support, communications, peace keeping professionals, medicine, food, instant bridges, and so on. Likewise, the millions of Muslims living in the middle of the travesty that was the ethnic cleansing in Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia were probably very "uplifted" when their lives were saved by NATO, principally through the actions of the US and UK military.
I'm likewise inspired by the fact that women in Afghanistan that were being shot at lunchtime in what used to be town soccer fields for daring to go to work outside the house, or their sons that were having hands chopped off for daring to, say, fly a kite or play music, are no longer under the thumb of the Taliban. That mysgonistic, cruel little boys' club of medeival-minded theocratic punks (remember, the ones that destroyed the ancient Buddha statues and other Afghani artistic treasures for not being Islamic enough?) was not going to be stopped through any application of NASA's considerable talents. And of course, there's good old Saddam, he of the daily target practice at the aircraft patrolling over the areas he agreed to vacate after invading a neighboring country and killing off whole villages in the north and south of his country. Again: that wasn't going to stop through economic pressure (as we can now plainly see, looking at the nature of the UN's best shot at that pressure - in the form of a completely corrupt oil-for-food program). I'm actually delighted that he didn't turn out to have the WMDs that even he thought he had (you can't hire honest WMD scientists in the middle east these days, even when you kill their family members... sheesh!). It's unfortunate that he shipped most of what was left off to Syria, but Syria at least does see the US military as the deterrent that it is. As did Libya - not a shot fired. And it's nice to know what it is that's keeping China from rolling over the so-far free island of Taiwan (the US Navy).
This will devolve into a gigantic discussion, but I'll wrap up this branch of it thusly:
benefit to mankind of developing newer and more efficient ways to kill each other is negligable
Our capacity to do so surgically, and to know when and where we should apply such force, is practically magical compared to only a few decades ago. Just the other day one of our Predators, hovering invisibly and silently above the outskirts of Baghdad, watched (in real time) as a truck load of insurgents set up a mortar firing position in a schoolyard. They arbitrarily lobbed a few mortar shells in a residential area (classic terror - indiscriminate death-dealing), and then packed up their truck and took off. The Predator's remote flight crew watched them slip back into the building from which they were operating, and after a quick chat with commanding officers, the Predator used a highly accurate weapon to strike the building. Substantial secondary explosions showed that the insurgents had lots of weapons stashed there, and 14 of them were taken out. In an earlier time
No, but we're not talking about live music. The issue is bit-for-bit perfect copies, endlessly reproduceable and sucked up by many thousands of people to cheap to pay the artists they "love." In the case of recordable CDs, the propogation is slower (more like it was with cassettes) but you can maintain the same quality without having to go back to the vinyl original, etc. No, the problem is quite different in practice and in scope.
If you are gonna use blank media for quasi-legal purposes, then be smart and do it via "cash and carry." Let some other poor slob get sued.
"Quasi-legal?" Is that like being quasi-pregnant? Pretty much is, or it isn't legal, I'd say.
Be smart... some other poor slob get sued
Now that is the sort of shining beacon of ethics that you'd think would convice recording artists that there aren't really any pirates out there to worry about, no siree!
Another one of my favorite excuses is "artists who want to be paid for their work aren't artists... they're businesspeople!"
Yeah, that's a great one. Because, you know, people who want to charge for their work? Corporate tools, man! Like, you know, that hack Peter Jackson and his cheesy movies! Corporations and capitalism are evil! Why, Michael Moore has it explained in his various documentaries which... he... um... charges for you to... see... uh, never mind.
As much as I like finding the middle ground, it's shit like this - mis understanding the argument - that makes it harder
But the parent is correct, none the less. How often do you reply with a clarifying comment when some does use the "infringment isn't theft" red herring in order to change the topic away from the fact that they're pirating anyway? I'd love to think that you're just as adamant about shouting down pirates as you are about people who argue about the semantics of the word "theft."
From my personal observations here and in other venues, a lot of people too cheap to pay the artists they claim to like what those artists are asking for their work immediately trot this and other falacious defenses, no matter how ridiculous. They won't confront the heart of the matter, which is that they're hypocritical in the extreme. It doesn't matter what they think about where the industry is or should be heading, what matters is that the at least some musicians still prefer a business arrangement whereby they are paid for the music they sell, and if you don't like that, you're welcome to listen to them on the radio or just choose entertainers that aren't looking for income from the sale of their recordings. It doesn't matter whether or not those artists will eventually be shown to be wrong about how not charging for your work will still somehow pay the bills... for now, they've asked that you pay, and they have the law on their side. If you don't like their choice of that arrangement, then you don't like them, and of course wouldn't dirty your ears with their music. Unless of course you're a hypocrite, which surely you're not.
But a whole lot of other people are, and many of them hate to get pinned down on it. They then frequently try to change the subject to imply that, hey, it's only infringement. Besides, they wouldn't have purchased the music anyway, it's all terrible Corporate Sound anyway. Um, other than the fact that they went out looking for it and got hold of it... which means they value it in some way, and thus value the artist who created it and asked that they pay for it. They just don't value the artist enough to show them that little bit of respect, that's all.
And sometimes makes them better: Project Head Start, AFDC, WIC, public education, need-based and academic scholarships, EITC, etc. Tell the whole story.
You'll notice I said, specifically, "doesn't always fix them" and "sometimes makes them worse." It goes without saying, as part of that statement, that the flip side is also sometimes true. Please take a little context into consideration, and recognize that I was responding to someone who said, essentially, that we should not be doing things like space research while there are hungry people. I find that to be a false dichotomy, and further find that if we waited on doing anything "technological" until everyone had a large plate of food, well, there would be all sorts of people that would never get there. A good example might be the huge logistical efforts and success our military had in the initial relief efforts surrounding the recent tsunami disaster. High-tech aircraft, space-based communications, imaging satellites, computer and communications networks, IT-based epidemiology tools... all of those fantastic tools came into play and made a big, immediate difference in a lot of lives. But without the sort of R&D we do in the technologies that were used, we wouldn't have them at our disposal, whether it's floating supplies right up to impacted villages, or tracking freighters as they enter our own harbors with un-announced cargos (hey, we're still working on that, but you get my drift).
Specifically as it regards public education: I happen to live the DC suburbs, and have a regular chance to see what different jurisdictions are doing with their tax dollars, school-wise. The most appalling statistic is the $10k+ that is spent per student in the DC public school system, and which delivers frightful results. Essentially illiterate "graduates," huge drop-out rates, complete unfamiliarity with the structure and nature of our civil society (beyond that which is gleaned from music videos and Grant Theft Auto, etc). Of course there are success stories, many of them. But the resources that are going in are delivering terrible results, relative to neighboring school systems. The difference is political and cultural. I'm sure you get my point, which is that, indeed, money, per se, is not the yardstick for "support" of students and their communities that many would say that it is. That same per-capita edcuational expenditure, used in any of a lot of excellent private school settings, as an example, would have a huge impact on such students that were allowed to attend. For the record, I can't abide religious schools, so I'm not including those - regardless of how effective they may be in academic discipline.
You are limiting your view to the tactics in producing food, but fail to take into account how that food or other aid is paid for and distributed, or the logistics. Technology plays a part, but only a part, and a small one.
No, I'd say that second to the culture nurturing it, technology is the single largest determiner of sustainable agriculture and its use by devloping countries. It's the difference between slash-and-burn in rainforest areas as opposed to thoughtful crop rotation and market timing. It's the difference between livestock pulling carts of coffee beans (and cutting down rainforest so you can feed the livestock), and efficient rail transportation, etc. It's the difference between losing and saving a crop that's being impacted by a fungus or parasite. It's the difference between a crop that can resist a drought, and one that can't. But if you don't have the right cultural framework for all of that (i.e., a corrupt Sudanese Islamo-fascist theocracy that would rather exterminate villages than hash out the logistics of letting them trade productively with one another), none of it matters.
Most of the stories you hear are lies perpetuated by those with an interest in doing so.
The single greatest impediment to tort reform are the trial lawyers that profit so immense
but can you really tell me people in the USA or the world should go hungry or go without health care while we spend billions on sending people to space?
Hmmm. Yes.
In the sense that people going hungry is a result of behaviors that hundreds of billions of dollars won't (and, even as we spend them, can't) fix. Throwing money at social problems doesn't always fix them, and sometimes makes them worse (see the comparitive self-sufficiency of kids born to other kids completely hooked on welfare, etc.). These are generally cultural issues, and it's simply going to take time. Twice the money in schools today won't make parents born 20 years ago any better at raising children right this minute. Those kids aren't going to be hungry at any time during their lives unless it's because they're not participating in the wider economy, and keeping that economy growing, efficient (through technology and its shrewd use), and reaching into new areas, is the best way to make that happen.
Yes, there are going to be circumstances beyond each of some individuals' control, and you can be born to parents that simply don't care whether or not you grow up into a someone who can feed herself. But to the extent that we do put resources into helping out people in those situations, we're not excluding doing the more magnificent things of which we, as a species and especially as an adventuresome culture, are capable.
I usually try to avoid politics and social debates
And, given the breathtakingly adolescent tone saturating most of those conversations (especially on slashdot) I can hardly blame you, but none of the cool nerdy stuff we love happens in a vacuum. Without weaving it into the wider cultural landscape (and the resources therein), the cool nerdy stuff would barely escape a handful of college labs. So fans of all things nerdly need to truly understand the larger societal and politcal contexts in which technology gets funded, used, praised, villified, and considered (too often) mutually exclusive with warmer, fuzzier "humanities" issues.
If you haven't noticed, though, I'd consider the progress of technology on all fronts to be the single greatest contributor to the conditions in which the potentially "hungry" live in the US. By conditions, I mean, as opposed to, say, that of those poor bastards in Niger, literally dropping dead from lack of food. In the US, you pretty much cannot drop dead from lack of food unless you want to, or are so addled/sick that you can't grasp what's being offered to you. Every city in the country at least has a place to obtain a meal for those that ask, and it's only through even grander technological feats that we polish the efficiencies and productivity that make that largess possible.
Besides, it's not like the money spent on space programs is actually packed up in boxes and launched into space. It mostly pays people, all of whom themselves buy houses, hire carpenters, rent videos, take the occasional vacation. Certainly some of their effort, put solely into making, say, an MRI machine so cheap and safe that we wouldn't think twice about using it on everyone with a sniffle, insurance or not, might lower the cost of health care a touch. But for that to happen meaningfully, we've got to take the lawyers out of healthcare first. It's not the lack of healthcare for a family that's really horrible, it's the fact that a lawsuit over someone else's test regimine, or the insistence on the use of fantastically costly drugs can burn up more "healthcare dollars" for one family than basic good care for 50 families would otherwise cost.
Of course, if everyone who owns a Bentley were to sell them, buy a Scion, and use the extra cash to buy 40 Scions for other people, there'd be less complaining about car ownership, either. But we're not a culture that prohibits the Bentley-ables from celebrating their prowess at basketball, charisma as an actor, insight at founding Google, or willingness to risk a lot on commercial space ventures, and nor should we be.
If you substitute "the rich" for "we", you dont sound so crazy:
The rich will be powered by lithium-ions, and thus need no oxygen. As the rich will be engineered machines, the whole terraforming things will be moot.
Come, now. You wouldn't have to go too far back before you'd have said the same thing about refrigeration, anti-biotics, and tiny little devices that you could hold up to your ear and use to talk to other people, almost anywhere in the world. I'm not rich, but I've got things that my great grandparents would have considered essentially magical.
Actually, it's more a matter of being able to back up what you say, or relying on a competitor's own published info. For example, a Subway ad might mention that one of their Super Tasty Toasted Meat Thingy Sandwiches has less saturated fat than McDonald's Big Mac. They're able to say this comfortably because McDonald's actually publishes the information. That's a lot different than saying "our sandwich is better than McDonalds' burger" because that is a very subjective comparison. When companies do want to make claims like that, the language always comes out, "in recent clinical taste tests..." with screen footers referring to the source of the info. Point is, the more narrow the comparitive/competitive claim, the more likely it is to get into an ad... but it also tends to sound drier and have less overall appeal.
Where that sort of naming-names comparison really works is in highly specialized markets where the consumers are keenly aware of the available products and actually want to compare specs. The nearest thing to this for the general consumer audience is probably the automotive market, where the manufacturers routinely compare horsepower, mileage, etc. with specific other cars.
There's nothing protecting a company from a competitor's "negative" ad, just laws protecting them from liable (actual false information that impacts their reputation). That's why you don't usually see an ad from Ford saying that "don't buy a Chevy, they're more popular with mean people" etc. Just because an ad points out something inferior about the competition (truly, a "negative" ad) doesn't make it illegal. But regardless of the legality, most advertisers (with the notable exception of political campaigns) stay away from overtly bashing the competition, since they know that it's a sign of weakness. If you can't sell on specific merits, you compose ads that just convey a nice feeling and hope that works. If you have to resort to trashing the competition (however much they may deserve it) you're going to alienate some customers just because of your tone. As long as advertisers don't overtly deceive, they're pretty much able to say anything, which is as it should be.
Sorry, I've not only seen no such demonstration, I've heard quite a lot of information to the contrary, not least from people who work in the same organization as the woman in question (I live in the DC area - unless you're a complete basement dweller, it's hard not to make at least some friends in that arena).
Specifically, you've got reporters coming TO Rove, conversationally raising the established and commonly known fact that the former ambassador's wife was an analyst (not a covert operative) and that she was the one to bring up the issue of sending her husband on the trip to Africa to talk to his mining industry buddies. He not only mischaracterized his findings (or lack of them), he completely BSed about the nature of the trip and whether or not the White House was responsible for sending him (not!). The old "I was on a mission for Cheney and reported to him that..." was completely, absolutely false. He was uttering that nonsense in a completely political context, attempting to alter the political landscape. He's partisan, and doesn't even pretend neutrality in that area. The entire discussion of his wife's role in sending him on that trip came up (amongst reporters first!) in the context of getting to the bottom of which party was not telling the truth (Plame's husband wasn't, on numerous aspects of the whole mess). Role saying "Yeah, I heard that too," to a reporter that alrady knew her, her relationship to Wilson, her job, her role in lining him up for the trip, and her awareness of her husband's BS-ing about it after the fact... a reporter who already knew all of that telling Rove about it and asking if he knew the same - I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he swallowed some bait, but he didn't mention her name and sure as hell didn't commit "treason" by any definition.
Treason, in my mind, is more like using the last few minutes of your time in office as president to dole out presidential pardons to fugitive millionaires with family members that have promised to help finance your legacy library in Little Rock. Think you'll see Bush pardoning Ken Lay? Not hardly. Surprised that the guy running one of the biggest energy-related companies in the country might be asked for some input on how our government might relate to that industry? I'm not. Sort of like how I wasn't surprised that the previous administration tried to form a major revision to the very nature health care in this country while "behind closed doors," using the president's wife to run the process. Treasonous? No, just behind closed doors.
Personally I don't care how many meetings an executive branch official has as they form their personal opinions about how to form a given policy. The executive's actions under the policy are that which need to be transparent. We just now got an energy bill signed (it's been rotting in congress for years). There's nothing hidden or non-transparent about it in any way. There's a lot of nonsense in it to be sure, just like there is in the recent transporation bill. But you can see it, and know which congressman to roast for it (hint: the ones that have multiple federally funded bridges and highways named after them while they're still in office... say, Robert Byrd?).
disregard for the opinion of half of this country while claiming a mandate
Hmmm. So, Bill Clinton got elected with less of a majority than Bush. And yet, he acted on matters according to his own judgement and taste. Who says he was ignoring the half of the country that didn't vote for him? Likewise, Bush's team may listen, but there are very few policy issues upon which their general sensibilities weren't loudly advertised during the previous election cycle. And he got more votes than the first time around. He's really not doing anything (or skipping anything) that he did address during the election. Kerry's spectacular lack of saying anything specific is probably what cost him the election.
None of what you say will ever even be weighed for credibility until you shake off a glaring logical inconsistency that you continue to invoke.
It's his resume to show to somebody that he/she can perform when asked, whether in the studio or live on stage, and get paid for the performance. The more he performs, the more he gets paid
In your model, how does someone who only produces their work in the studio environment and does not ever "perform" (or whose material cannot be performed because, say, one musician played all 20 tracks) make a living? You're saying that their recordings are ads, even though they are the performance (just like a movie is). If paying the artist for those products is off the table, how does making more of them ever add up to anything? Zero times anything is still zero.
It sounds like you're so fixated on depriving the artists and the marketplace from one of many mechanisms for income/consumption that you're willing to dispense with music and films made by studio professionals just so the inconvenience of the existence of their artform doesn't trip up your position.
The fact is that some art can only be produced through lengthy processes such as studio production. Additional fact: some people are willing to pay to enjoy that work (I'm one of them). Additional fact: some artists are more than happy to only deal with people like me. Additional fact: any artist that doesn't like it can just do whatever they want anyway, and completely forgo publishing, or can publish while waiving their copyrights. Your favorite artists (obviously, the ones that are waiving their rights) can have what you want, and those that prefer to think in terms of owning their own life's work, can have what they want.
It seems to me that the artists are being a bunch of crybabies who want special treatment everywhere they go. They get all pissed off if they don't get priority service at the restaurant. They sure don't belive in obeying traffic laws. And they want special privileges for being the court jester. Well, lucky you. The public swallowed it. You're getting what you want. The public is throwing billions at your feet.
Do you even hear yourself? I begin to see now that you're completely clueless about who "artists" are, and that, I think explains your competely twisted, bitter take how they make a living. Not all of them are shrill Michael Moores, if that's what you're getting at. Not all if them are absurd Barbara Streisands. Some of them are hardworking animators, writers, journalists, symphony conductors, and the vast majority of them have a far more decent, civilized, rational and pleasant demeanor than either you or the stereotypes you're holding up as "artists."
This goes for booksellers and movie makers as well. They just have to find a better way.
No, you have to find a better way to convince writers that your insane idea of them only earning an income when they "perform" their work is somehow rational. If you're right (and you're not), then of course all of those non-"obsolete" writers will of course just jump right up, see the wisdom of your view, and start booking coffee houses where they'll no doubt make enough to pay for that new transmission they need for their car, and the vet bill, and the gas they'll need so they can drive all over town getting their own "performances" from every other person they want to entertain and inform them.
I guess I'm done with this now. You think that artists are evil cartoon characters, and that completely illustrates your state of mind.
First, take a moment to consider the context in which I was replying. It was an ill-considered troll feeding moment, and the GP's rhetorical silliness (traitors in the White House, neo-cons destroying space shuttles, our horrible economy, blah blah) got what the commentor wanted - an off-the-cuff jab back. You know, when you reply too briefly and without enough context, the... um... Anonymous Coward Trolling Terrorists win... or something like that.
Seriously, you must know by this point in your life that pretty much nothing is that simple.
Clearly. And the problem with clowns like the guy I was replying to is that you either need to construct a 1000-word history lesson (that he won't even read anyway), and explain the underlying concepts that are worth defending while putting historical compromises/mis-steps in perspective, or you just put in a rhetorical jab that may or may not register at the level at which that person is communicating. I know it's vastly more complicated than that, but actually I do find the basic reality pretty simple. There is no greater force for democracy and liberty, right now, this minute, than the U.S., warts and all. We do now, and have always had to hold our noses while dealing with certain other societies/individuals.
Do I find it frustrating that the Saudis are who they are? Yup. But you'll notice they've managed to avoid seeming bristly and overtly hostile, as a regime, as opposed to those charming Taliban folks, or Saddam, or North Korea, or the delightfully late Yassir Arafat, etc. There are definately strong currents in Saudi Arabia that would like to see both us AND the house of Saud swirl the toilet. That puts the Saudis in that famous enemy-of-my-enemy category. Too late, of course - they could have headed off the bin Laden family's favorite son a long time ago, and didn't. I really don't think they expected him and his followers to become as malignant as they have become.
The idea that anybody could, at this point, still attempt to defend this administration is bizarre enough
I've got all sorts of bones to pick with the administration. But they are the administration. We truly, acually, really are dealing with issues that could make the economic and social impact of 9/11 look trivial, and I have an interest in at least attempting to squash the "traitors in the White House" silliness because that's the stuff that gets circulated more than, say, enormous AIDS support to Africa, or pressuring Syria to get out of Lebannon's internal politics, or continuing to keep China from breathing down Taiwan's neck any more than they already do. Etc.
I loathe Bush's take on most matters related to the sciences (though I like much of the current NASA redirection - but that's another, and mixed discussion). I find him earnest, but definitely a product of his generation, and too much under the sway of the religious circles that he grabbed hold of while shaking off his youthful over-partying excesses. I don't think he wants babies and old people to starve, and I don't think he likes poison water, or wants to see Iran burn, baby burn. But he's the C-in-C, and dealing with an unbelievably difficult moment in history, and there are people out here just saying some damn silly stuff.
I'm not too worried that you've lost all respect for me, since I'll just keep posting my thoughts, however provoked they may be, sometimes, by flamebating nitwits. One of these days I'll learn not to fall for that stuff, or will decide to invest the extra time in making my comments in context even when it will be wasted on the actual person to whom I'm replying. I guess I'm still rather shocked that anybody bothers to read anything I say, so it's not always in the forefront of my mind to ask myself what a wider audience might conclude about me, based on a barbed, late-night exchange made while watching Conan O'Brien and scratching at six new no-doubt global-warming-caused mosquito bites.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it has been suggested that the reason man started cooking food was simply to recreate the warmth of a freshly killed animal, not because they were afraid of injesting a little blood.
I think it's more likely that when lightning strikes a buffalo, you can smell that all-natural bar-b-cue from at least a mile away. Of course burned hair sort of gets in the way of the medium-rare tenderloin.
Of course, they need to figure out a way to exercise it to make it taste like regular meat.
I hope that on my space ship, we have a separate module for the large sheets of twitching synthetic meat. I mean, that's just going to be ugly.
argue that a simple hunter-gather culture can be more prosperous
Well, some argue that the world is flat, or that evolution doesn't exist, etc. Certainly I may spend more hours working than Mr. Hunter Gatherer did in a given week... but Mr. Hunter Gatherer would be amazed that at my age I'm still alive. I'd be the tribe's ancient elder guy at anything older than 35.
I don't mean to suggest that the hands-on enjoyment of technology, in and of itself, is the mark of "prosperity" (I know people who feel rich and fulfilled at the sound of their kids' laughter). Of course, those same people would feel non-stop stress, and be very aware of the relative poverty of their situation if they had to worry about the same level of capricious disease and predatory threat that Mr. Hunter Gatherer and his clan faced. When a cut finger was a routine vector for a fatal infection, the prosperous use of free time would have been cold comfort indeed.
destroying the foundations for self-rule
But self rule in those areas (as well as in Iraq) prior to the formation of larger colonies/future-countries was pretty much limited to small territories and relatively small clan/tribal groups with homogenous cultures. It would be foolish to pretend that those groups didn't routinely fight over resources, or even essentially eliminate one another on occasion. Most of the inertia from those periods has survived the colonial phase, and such rivalries as were already there are back, but with modern communication/propaganda, left-over weapons, oil money, and now with intruding external ideologies (like Islmo-fascism) that just pour gasoline on the fires.
Certainly those nations with a more exploitive bent are delighted to have new stuff to steal and a captive consumer base. That's colonialism in its essence.
So, who are you referring to? Come on, out with it.
The reason most developing nations can't seem to shake off poverty is economic and political damage from centuries of colonialism
Surely you're not saying that, say, Niger (currently starving itself to death) would be a picture of high tech prosperity if only the French, Brits, and Germans had stayed out of Africa? Or, would increasingly prosperous places like Cameroon be.. what? more efficient in their land use, even farther along in their use of the internet and cell phones, using more fuel efficient urban buses, and cooking up less exotic "bush meat" in their restaurants if... the Germans hadn't set up shop there, and then lost it to the French? And all of those folks from Cameroon that work their asses off so they can go to college in Paris, or come to the US to get into high-tech careers... they'd prefer to have had their piece of Africa, what, left in the condition it was in 200 years ago? I'm not suggesting, at all, that the people living there don't have the intellectual capacity to have passed through the industrial revolution and into the info age on their own... just that they weren't already a couple centuries into the use of printing presses and other cultural accelerators as seen in Europe at that point. Imperial excesses (such as slavery) not withstanding, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that some cultures have had the last two hundred years of colonial/post-colonial circumstances weigh more heavily on them, and some have taken it and run with it... depending mostly on how those cultures functioned in the first place.
As for "globalization," I suppose I'm feeling the same way. Those cultures that are oriented around a more entrepenurial way of life are delighted to have more resources and new customers. Those that are desparate for any kind of work but don't have a local understanding of how to best wheel and deal are going to take longer to get that woven into their culture. But it doesn't seem to take them long to decide they want the fruit of the world's marketplace, so the other half of that equation will come along at some point where it hasn't already started.
Calling an opponent a "hypocrite" when the argument is not about that opponent's own behavior is not a valid form of argumentation
Well, sure. But indicating what is, and is not hypocrisy as used in the debate at hand... that's reasonable. And calling the people who behave hypocritically what they are is, well, reasonable.
The behavior of millions of people is the heart of the matter, since it is what has made this entire issue an issue at all. And when some of the defenders of that behavior decide to address semantics, rather than the actual behavior itself, then they're being at least sleazily distracting, and if they themselves are part of the problem, then they are indeed hypocrites. Follow the thread and you'll see we're not talking IP law or copyright statutes, but about the tactics used by people arguing those topics.
wow.. i've never seen such militance
Wow, I've never seen such 1) exaggeration, 2) misunderstanding of the word "militance"
Before they can go into contract talks with a major label, they must sign another contract
So, so not true. There's a saying among musicians (in Nashville, for example): "Say yes to everything, and sign nothing." The days of Billy Joel being so naive that he loses the income from the first third of his career are over. Musicians have never (thanks to industry message boards, "how not to get screwed" books written by experienced artists, and so on) had more resources than they do today to do two things: strike a smart deal with a publisher, and/or avoid traditional publishers. Think how many times you hear about artists starting their own label so that they can run things the way they want.
they have no other way because their industry is under the vicelike grip of a cartel
How? What is actually stopping artists from starting their own labels? In fact, I'm sure that these people would be very surprised to hear that they're part of an evil cartel. And the people running smaller, independent labels that have been surprised at how much business they're doing probably aren't paying their cartel dues, despite what you say.
denies kids their futures and sometimes their meals by sueing them and their families for a few measly songs which they could easily record off the radio to the same effect
And this is because these kid's parents weren't intelligent enough to remind kids not to take stuff they're not entitled to, or because the kids you're referring to are totally aware that what they're doing is illegal, and are just deciding to take the chance they won't get caught? Whether they can or cannot "just get it off the radio" isn't germaine. Using P2P systems, we're talking about spreading around bit-for-bit exact copies of the product that the artist wants to sell, and deliberately avoiding paying for it. It's simple: people say they like the musician, they want the music, and despite the fact that the musician is set up to sell their work, some of their "fans" decide to just rip it off and save a couple of bucks. Part of that deal is the risk that someone may actually call them on it, and even prosecute.
They don't show integrity
What are you talking about? They couldn't be simpler, or more honest. They say: "Here, enjoy the music that I spent the last year of my life making. It will cost you a dollar. If that's too much, then please go find a musician that doesn't want to charge you." How much simpler could that be?
treat me like a thief
Do you think that a pizza shop is treating you like a thief when they have you pay before they serve you your pizza? Does a gas station treat you like a thief when they ask you to use your PIN when paying at the pump? Is a movie theater treating you like a thief when they have you buy and show a ticket before you sit down in front in front of their big screen? Is a retailer that keeps their MP3 players in a locked case treating you like a thief? No, these people are all reacting to the reality that there really are thieves, and lots of them. So they have to react to that reality. Do you leave your car unlocked when you park it downtown? Fair use, by the way, doesn't mean that the person who creates the material in quesiton is under any obligation to make it easy for people to create bit-for-bit copies of their work without their support. If you really must have a perfect copy of something for a project that cannot exist without getting around such DRM as may be involved, then get the artist you're copying from involved. But we both know you're not talking about fair use. You're talking about "sharing" the file in an unlimited way, and about your own inabilit
Careful there, cowboy. All that usin' reason n' logic n' whatnot is likely to git you run right out Slashdottown.
Also, you know the rules: no using words like "disigenuous" actually correctly, and in the proper context here on slashdot. What were you thinking, man?
Anyway, thanks for having a clue and calling a twit a twit.
On the global scale, you and I and everyone reading this are disgustingly, wastefully, rich.
But we also manage to produce more food on an acre of land, burn less rainforest per head of cattle, and kill fewer moms during childbirth than do most people in the developing world. "Disgustingly" rich? How do you figure? Disgusting to whom? Surely you're not saying that some poor farmer in Cambodia would be disgusted to have running potable water, children free of avoidable diseases, and an easy way to stay in touch with his mom, back in the old village?
About half the world lives on $2 a day or less
Sure, and even adjusting for inflation, so did much of the US even just a few decades ago. Is that any reason to back away from developing technologies that help us live well, long, and healthily while using fewer resources? Modern water treatment isn't wasteful. Crapping in your only nearby river, out of which you also drink, thus poisoning your kids: that's wasteful (um, and disgusting). You make it sound like we should all lively poorly so long as anyone else is. How about instead we all live as efficiently and well as we can so that we can continue to produce the largess that allows us to ship trained professionals, billions in supplies and support, and some hope to places that are learning how to live better? We've been on the planet, more or less in our current human format/framework, for tens of thousands of years. Learning how to live outside of the hunter/gatherer slash/burn mode has only happened - in the scheme of things - more or less earlier this morning. I empathize with the family still living the way the entire species has for the last 10,000 years... but I also recognize that he and his family have probably had smallpox vaccinations, and can probably take their kids to a clinic where antibiotics are available to cure what would otherwise kill them, and cut off any chance of future literacy and conservation-oriented farming and industry.
I'm reminded of a great scene in - was it Animal House? - where one of the sorority sisters planning a social event throws her hands up and says "I don't know anyone can have a dance when there are hungry people in the world!" The cure for those problems is cultural, not strictly financial. And when we dare talk about helping to change the culture in a place that can't seem to shake off poverty and disease, then we're evil for that, too. *sigh*
Artists make their money through merchandising, touring, and other transactions which have nothing to do with CD sales
Really? 100% of them? 100% of their income? What about arists that don't tour, and don't bother with t-shirt sales? And further, why do you care if an artist chooses to use a separate company to handle her business dealings, and carry all of the overhead of studio time, distribution, etc? It's a choice. There's absolutely no reason that an artist can't go another direction, and many do. But what you're saying is that artists are too dumb to know what they're doing (those poor, poor dumb artists), and that only you know what's best for them, which includes not paying them what they're asking for their recordings.
Artists make money through multiple channels, and recording sales is one of them. If you don't like that an artist has chosen that route, then don't pretend that you like that artist.
As for your "paraphrasing" of me, you're completely incorrect. I didn't say that "everyone" who downloads is making up excuses. Just the ones who do so against the artists' expressed wishes. The millions of downloads from places like iTunes indicates that there are still plenty of people left who understand that to be a fan of an artist means actually taking that person at their word, and showing a little integrity in the process.
Shall I "paraphrase" you now? "Musicians are too dumb to know what's good for them. They should stick to traveling to bars 200 nights a year, and selling t-shirts. I will show them how much I pity them by not following them from bar to bar, but instead by enjoying a nice, digital recording of their work that I've elected not to pay for, even though that's what the band has asked that I do. I love that band! But they're so dumb, they need my help to see that they can't make good businesses decisions. I'll teach them how to make better decisions by ripping them off. They don't need the $0.85 they'd make if I buy download their CD legally - they need my sage advice! That, and the advice of 1000 people I don't know who will also be making copies of what I just got without paying. Then they'll be smart and stop trying charge for their work! Think how much happier they'll be, and how much better their future recordings will be once they're spending all of their time in bars! Of course, copyrights and whatnot should still apply to t-shirt logos, since I wouldn't want some third party to "share" the band's print artwork and sell t-shirts that don't profit the band, because then they'd be getting ripped off... oh, wait."
Sorry, but in world terms, if you have those things, you are rich
I think I beg to differ. Refrigeration can be found in every country in the world. They even have small propane-powered units that are used in jungle medical clincs. Likewise with antibiotics, etc.
Sure, most people living in rural India don't have their own personal cell phone yet, but in most developing places, they're now skipping right over land lines and going straight to wireless. I don't think that you can describe pretty much all of Europe, huge swaths of central and south America, north America, more or less all of the population centers of the Pacific rim, Russia, and pockets of humanity everywhere else, to be "rich." That's more like "normal." Better to describe those remaining places that do not have electricity as "developing" or just plain "poor." Here's hoping that the economics in those places catches up with everyone else, sooner rather than later, but I don't think that the most basic uses of refrigeration (as the obvious example, in food warehouses, ice making facilities, hospitals) are in any way exotic, even in most third-world places. Sure, right in the middle Niger, or in the nomadic stretches of other parts of Africa, or in the still purely locally agrarian spots in India or Pakistan or Xhrtfzistan it's just simply going to be a while. But that makes those spots poor, rather than making Mexico City, Younde Camaroon, or Pittsburgh "rich."
Creativity points: +5
Really Reaching points: +5
Changing my opinion of record sale royalties: 0
By the way, my great grandfather was a buggy whip manufacturer, you insensitive clod.
Just my bigger male bird dog alone should be able to light up my block at night, and he's very accurate.
You apparently miss the point
Er, back atcha.
The point is, when you essentially offer some coaching to precisely those people who are pirating stuff, it just smells bad to the wider audience. And obviously, if it wasn't going on, on a huge scale, there wouldn't be any interest in trotting purchase records into a suit in the first place. Believe me, I'd hate, with a passion, to get dragged into a suit just so I could explain that I use a couple hundred blank CDs every month doing database backups.
Spending that half trillion dollars will help the economy no matter how we spend it, so why not do things that uplift the spirit (to be cheesey)?
It's certainly not cheesy to think that the actions (and expenditures) of the government should, when possible, be uplifing and even inspiring. After all, the government must build bridges and buildings (which should be beautiful, or at least not ugly), must produce material in all sorts of media (which should be compelling and esthetically pleasing, and well written), and so on. There's no question that the space program, for example, is an opportunity for a wee bit of drama, and adventure.
That being said, there are people (I'm one of them, for example) that routinely find the duties, and actions of our miliary men and women to by inherently uplifting. Witness their tremendous performance in the wake of the recent tsunami disaster - no other entity could have been on site that quickly, with that much materiel, logistical support, communications, peace keeping professionals, medicine, food, instant bridges, and so on. Likewise, the millions of Muslims living in the middle of the travesty that was the ethnic cleansing in Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia were probably very "uplifted" when their lives were saved by NATO, principally through the actions of the US and UK military.
I'm likewise inspired by the fact that women in Afghanistan that were being shot at lunchtime in what used to be town soccer fields for daring to go to work outside the house, or their sons that were having hands chopped off for daring to, say, fly a kite or play music, are no longer under the thumb of the Taliban. That mysgonistic, cruel little boys' club of medeival-minded theocratic punks (remember, the ones that destroyed the ancient Buddha statues and other Afghani artistic treasures for not being Islamic enough?) was not going to be stopped through any application of NASA's considerable talents. And of course, there's good old Saddam, he of the daily target practice at the aircraft patrolling over the areas he agreed to vacate after invading a neighboring country and killing off whole villages in the north and south of his country. Again: that wasn't going to stop through economic pressure (as we can now plainly see, looking at the nature of the UN's best shot at that pressure - in the form of a completely corrupt oil-for-food program). I'm actually delighted that he didn't turn out to have the WMDs that even he thought he had (you can't hire honest WMD scientists in the middle east these days, even when you kill their family members... sheesh!). It's unfortunate that he shipped most of what was left off to Syria, but Syria at least does see the US military as the deterrent that it is. As did Libya - not a shot fired. And it's nice to know what it is that's keeping China from rolling over the so-far free island of Taiwan (the US Navy).
This will devolve into a gigantic discussion, but I'll wrap up this branch of it thusly:
benefit to mankind of developing newer and more efficient ways to kill each other is negligable
Our capacity to do so surgically, and to know when and where we should apply such force, is practically magical compared to only a few decades ago. Just the other day one of our Predators, hovering invisibly and silently above the outskirts of Baghdad, watched (in real time) as a truck load of insurgents set up a mortar firing position in a schoolyard. They arbitrarily lobbed a few mortar shells in a residential area (classic terror - indiscriminate death-dealing), and then packed up their truck and took off. The Predator's remote flight crew watched them slip back into the building from which they were operating, and after a quick chat with commanding officers, the Predator used a highly accurate weapon to strike the building. Substantial secondary explosions showed that the insurgents had lots of weapons stashed there, and 14 of them were taken out. In an earlier time
So did the Compact Cassette kill live music?
No, but we're not talking about live music. The issue is bit-for-bit perfect copies, endlessly reproduceable and sucked up by many thousands of people to cheap to pay the artists they "love." In the case of recordable CDs, the propogation is slower (more like it was with cassettes) but you can maintain the same quality without having to go back to the vinyl original, etc. No, the problem is quite different in practice and in scope.
If you are gonna use blank media for quasi-legal purposes, then be smart and do it via "cash and carry." Let some other poor slob get sued.
... some other poor slob get sued
"Quasi-legal?" Is that like being quasi-pregnant? Pretty much is, or it isn't legal, I'd say.
Be smart
Now that is the sort of shining beacon of ethics that you'd think would convice recording artists that there aren't really any pirates out there to worry about, no siree!
Another one of my favorite excuses is "artists who want to be paid for their work aren't artists... they're businesspeople!"
Yeah, that's a great one. Because, you know, people who want to charge for their work? Corporate tools, man! Like, you know, that hack Peter Jackson and his cheesy movies! Corporations and capitalism are evil! Why, Michael Moore has it explained in his various documentaries which... he... um... charges for you to... see... uh, never mind.
As much as I like finding the middle ground, it's shit like this - mis understanding the argument - that makes it harder
But the parent is correct, none the less. How often do you reply with a clarifying comment when some does use the "infringment isn't theft" red herring in order to change the topic away from the fact that they're pirating anyway? I'd love to think that you're just as adamant about shouting down pirates as you are about people who argue about the semantics of the word "theft."
From my personal observations here and in other venues, a lot of people too cheap to pay the artists they claim to like what those artists are asking for their work immediately trot this and other falacious defenses, no matter how ridiculous. They won't confront the heart of the matter, which is that they're hypocritical in the extreme. It doesn't matter what they think about where the industry is or should be heading, what matters is that the at least some musicians still prefer a business arrangement whereby they are paid for the music they sell, and if you don't like that, you're welcome to listen to them on the radio or just choose entertainers that aren't looking for income from the sale of their recordings. It doesn't matter whether or not those artists will eventually be shown to be wrong about how not charging for your work will still somehow pay the bills... for now, they've asked that you pay, and they have the law on their side. If you don't like their choice of that arrangement, then you don't like them, and of course wouldn't dirty your ears with their music. Unless of course you're a hypocrite, which surely you're not.
But a whole lot of other people are, and many of them hate to get pinned down on it. They then frequently try to change the subject to imply that, hey, it's only infringement. Besides, they wouldn't have purchased the music anyway, it's all terrible Corporate Sound anyway. Um, other than the fact that they went out looking for it and got hold of it... which means they value it in some way, and thus value the artist who created it and asked that they pay for it. They just don't value the artist enough to show them that little bit of respect, that's all.
And sometimes makes them better: Project Head Start, AFDC, WIC, public education, need-based and academic scholarships, EITC, etc. Tell the whole story.
You'll notice I said, specifically, "doesn't always fix them" and "sometimes makes them worse." It goes without saying, as part of that statement, that the flip side is also sometimes true. Please take a little context into consideration, and recognize that I was responding to someone who said, essentially, that we should not be doing things like space research while there are hungry people. I find that to be a false dichotomy, and further find that if we waited on doing anything "technological" until everyone had a large plate of food, well, there would be all sorts of people that would never get there. A good example might be the huge logistical efforts and success our military had in the initial relief efforts surrounding the recent tsunami disaster. High-tech aircraft, space-based communications, imaging satellites, computer and communications networks, IT-based epidemiology tools... all of those fantastic tools came into play and made a big, immediate difference in a lot of lives. But without the sort of R&D we do in the technologies that were used, we wouldn't have them at our disposal, whether it's floating supplies right up to impacted villages, or tracking freighters as they enter our own harbors with un-announced cargos (hey, we're still working on that, but you get my drift).
Specifically as it regards public education: I happen to live the DC suburbs, and have a regular chance to see what different jurisdictions are doing with their tax dollars, school-wise. The most appalling statistic is the $10k+ that is spent per student in the DC public school system, and which delivers frightful results. Essentially illiterate "graduates," huge drop-out rates, complete unfamiliarity with the structure and nature of our civil society (beyond that which is gleaned from music videos and Grant Theft Auto, etc). Of course there are success stories, many of them. But the resources that are going in are delivering terrible results, relative to neighboring school systems. The difference is political and cultural. I'm sure you get my point, which is that, indeed, money, per se, is not the yardstick for "support" of students and their communities that many would say that it is. That same per-capita edcuational expenditure, used in any of a lot of excellent private school settings, as an example, would have a huge impact on such students that were allowed to attend. For the record, I can't abide religious schools, so I'm not including those - regardless of how effective they may be in academic discipline.
You are limiting your view to the tactics in producing food, but fail to take into account how that food or other aid is paid for and distributed, or the logistics. Technology plays a part, but only a part, and a small one.
No, I'd say that second to the culture nurturing it, technology is the single largest determiner of sustainable agriculture and its use by devloping countries. It's the difference between slash-and-burn in rainforest areas as opposed to thoughtful crop rotation and market timing. It's the difference between livestock pulling carts of coffee beans (and cutting down rainforest so you can feed the livestock), and efficient rail transportation, etc. It's the difference between losing and saving a crop that's being impacted by a fungus or parasite. It's the difference between a crop that can resist a drought, and one that can't. But if you don't have the right cultural framework for all of that (i.e., a corrupt Sudanese Islamo-fascist theocracy that would rather exterminate villages than hash out the logistics of letting them trade productively with one another), none of it matters.
Most of the stories you hear are lies perpetuated by those with an interest in doing so.
The single greatest impediment to tort reform are the trial lawyers that profit so immense
but can you really tell me people in the USA or the world should go hungry or go without health care while we spend billions on sending people to space?
Hmmm. Yes.
In the sense that people going hungry is a result of behaviors that hundreds of billions of dollars won't (and, even as we spend them, can't) fix. Throwing money at social problems doesn't always fix them, and sometimes makes them worse (see the comparitive self-sufficiency of kids born to other kids completely hooked on welfare, etc.). These are generally cultural issues, and it's simply going to take time. Twice the money in schools today won't make parents born 20 years ago any better at raising children right this minute. Those kids aren't going to be hungry at any time during their lives unless it's because they're not participating in the wider economy, and keeping that economy growing, efficient (through technology and its shrewd use), and reaching into new areas, is the best way to make that happen.
Yes, there are going to be circumstances beyond each of some individuals' control, and you can be born to parents that simply don't care whether or not you grow up into a someone who can feed herself. But to the extent that we do put resources into helping out people in those situations, we're not excluding doing the more magnificent things of which we, as a species and especially as an adventuresome culture, are capable.
I usually try to avoid politics and social debates
And, given the breathtakingly adolescent tone saturating most of those conversations (especially on slashdot) I can hardly blame you, but none of the cool nerdy stuff we love happens in a vacuum. Without weaving it into the wider cultural landscape (and the resources therein), the cool nerdy stuff would barely escape a handful of college labs. So fans of all things nerdly need to truly understand the larger societal and politcal contexts in which technology gets funded, used, praised, villified, and considered (too often) mutually exclusive with warmer, fuzzier "humanities" issues.
If you haven't noticed, though, I'd consider the progress of technology on all fronts to be the single greatest contributor to the conditions in which the potentially "hungry" live in the US. By conditions, I mean, as opposed to, say, that of those poor bastards in Niger, literally dropping dead from lack of food. In the US, you pretty much cannot drop dead from lack of food unless you want to, or are so addled/sick that you can't grasp what's being offered to you. Every city in the country at least has a place to obtain a meal for those that ask, and it's only through even grander technological feats that we polish the efficiencies and productivity that make that largess possible.
Besides, it's not like the money spent on space programs is actually packed up in boxes and launched into space. It mostly pays people, all of whom themselves buy houses, hire carpenters, rent videos, take the occasional vacation. Certainly some of their effort, put solely into making, say, an MRI machine so cheap and safe that we wouldn't think twice about using it on everyone with a sniffle, insurance or not, might lower the cost of health care a touch. But for that to happen meaningfully, we've got to take the lawyers out of healthcare first. It's not the lack of healthcare for a family that's really horrible, it's the fact that a lawsuit over someone else's test regimine, or the insistence on the use of fantastically costly drugs can burn up more "healthcare dollars" for one family than basic good care for 50 families would otherwise cost.
Of course, if everyone who owns a Bentley were to sell them, buy a Scion, and use the extra cash to buy 40 Scions for other people, there'd be less complaining about car ownership, either. But we're not a culture that prohibits the Bentley-ables from celebrating their prowess at basketball, charisma as an actor, insight at founding Google, or willingness to risk a lot on commercial space ventures, and nor should we be.
If you substitute "the rich" for "we", you dont sound so crazy:
The rich will be powered by lithium-ions, and thus need no oxygen. As the rich will be engineered machines, the whole terraforming things will be moot.
Come, now. You wouldn't have to go too far back before you'd have said the same thing about refrigeration, anti-biotics, and tiny little devices that you could hold up to your ear and use to talk to other people, almost anywhere in the world. I'm not rich, but I've got things that my great grandparents would have considered essentially magical.
Actually, it's more a matter of being able to back up what you say, or relying on a competitor's own published info. For example, a Subway ad might mention that one of their Super Tasty Toasted Meat Thingy Sandwiches has less saturated fat than McDonald's Big Mac. They're able to say this comfortably because McDonald's actually publishes the information. That's a lot different than saying "our sandwich is better than McDonalds' burger" because that is a very subjective comparison. When companies do want to make claims like that, the language always comes out, "in recent clinical taste tests..." with screen footers referring to the source of the info. Point is, the more narrow the comparitive/competitive claim, the more likely it is to get into an ad... but it also tends to sound drier and have less overall appeal.
Where that sort of naming-names comparison really works is in highly specialized markets where the consumers are keenly aware of the available products and actually want to compare specs. The nearest thing to this for the general consumer audience is probably the automotive market, where the manufacturers routinely compare horsepower, mileage, etc. with specific other cars.
There's nothing protecting a company from a competitor's "negative" ad, just laws protecting them from liable (actual false information that impacts their reputation). That's why you don't usually see an ad from Ford saying that "don't buy a Chevy, they're more popular with mean people" etc. Just because an ad points out something inferior about the competition (truly, a "negative" ad) doesn't make it illegal. But regardless of the legality, most advertisers (with the notable exception of political campaigns) stay away from overtly bashing the competition, since they know that it's a sign of weakness. If you can't sell on specific merits, you compose ads that just convey a nice feeling and hope that works. If you have to resort to trashing the competition (however much they may deserve it) you're going to alienate some customers just because of your tone. As long as advertisers don't overtly deceive, they're pretty much able to say anything, which is as it should be.
demonstrated fact of Rove's treason
Sorry, I've not only seen no such demonstration, I've heard quite a lot of information to the contrary, not least from people who work in the same organization as the woman in question (I live in the DC area - unless you're a complete basement dweller, it's hard not to make at least some friends in that arena).
Specifically, you've got reporters coming TO Rove, conversationally raising the established and commonly known fact that the former ambassador's wife was an analyst (not a covert operative) and that she was the one to bring up the issue of sending her husband on the trip to Africa to talk to his mining industry buddies. He not only mischaracterized his findings (or lack of them), he completely BSed about the nature of the trip and whether or not the White House was responsible for sending him (not!). The old "I was on a mission for Cheney and reported to him that..." was completely, absolutely false. He was uttering that nonsense in a completely political context, attempting to alter the political landscape. He's partisan, and doesn't even pretend neutrality in that area. The entire discussion of his wife's role in sending him on that trip came up (amongst reporters first!) in the context of getting to the bottom of which party was not telling the truth (Plame's husband wasn't, on numerous aspects of the whole mess). Role saying "Yeah, I heard that too," to a reporter that alrady knew her, her relationship to Wilson, her job, her role in lining him up for the trip, and her awareness of her husband's BS-ing about it after the fact... a reporter who already knew all of that telling Rove about it and asking if he knew the same - I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he swallowed some bait, but he didn't mention her name and sure as hell didn't commit "treason" by any definition.
Treason, in my mind, is more like using the last few minutes of your time in office as president to dole out presidential pardons to fugitive millionaires with family members that have promised to help finance your legacy library in Little Rock. Think you'll see Bush pardoning Ken Lay? Not hardly. Surprised that the guy running one of the biggest energy-related companies in the country might be asked for some input on how our government might relate to that industry? I'm not. Sort of like how I wasn't surprised that the previous administration tried to form a major revision to the very nature health care in this country while "behind closed doors," using the president's wife to run the process. Treasonous? No, just behind closed doors.
Personally I don't care how many meetings an executive branch official has as they form their personal opinions about how to form a given policy. The executive's actions under the policy are that which need to be transparent. We just now got an energy bill signed (it's been rotting in congress for years). There's nothing hidden or non-transparent about it in any way. There's a lot of nonsense in it to be sure, just like there is in the recent transporation bill. But you can see it, and know which congressman to roast for it (hint: the ones that have multiple federally funded bridges and highways named after them while they're still in office... say, Robert Byrd?).
disregard for the opinion of half of this country while claiming a mandate
Hmmm. So, Bill Clinton got elected with less of a majority than Bush. And yet, he acted on matters according to his own judgement and taste. Who says he was ignoring the half of the country that didn't vote for him? Likewise, Bush's team may listen, but there are very few policy issues upon which their general sensibilities weren't loudly advertised during the previous election cycle. And he got more votes than the first time around. He's really not doing anything (or skipping anything) that he did address during the election. Kerry's spectacular lack of saying anything specific is probably what cost him the election.
As for C
None of what you say will ever even be weighed for credibility until you shake off a glaring logical inconsistency that you continue to invoke.
It's his resume to show to somebody that he/she can perform when asked, whether in the studio or live on stage, and get paid for the performance. The more he performs, the more he gets paid
In your model, how does someone who only produces their work in the studio environment and does not ever "perform" (or whose material cannot be performed because, say, one musician played all 20 tracks) make a living? You're saying that their recordings are ads, even though they are the performance (just like a movie is). If paying the artist for those products is off the table, how does making more of them ever add up to anything? Zero times anything is still zero.
It sounds like you're so fixated on depriving the artists and the marketplace from one of many mechanisms for income/consumption that you're willing to dispense with music and films made by studio professionals just so the inconvenience of the existence of their artform doesn't trip up your position.
The fact is that some art can only be produced through lengthy processes such as studio production. Additional fact: some people are willing to pay to enjoy that work (I'm one of them). Additional fact: some artists are more than happy to only deal with people like me. Additional fact: any artist that doesn't like it can just do whatever they want anyway, and completely forgo publishing, or can publish while waiving their copyrights. Your favorite artists (obviously, the ones that are waiving their rights) can have what you want, and those that prefer to think in terms of owning their own life's work, can have what they want.
It seems to me that the artists are being a bunch of crybabies who want special treatment everywhere they go. They get all pissed off if they don't get priority service at the restaurant. They sure don't belive in obeying traffic laws. And they want special privileges for being the court jester. Well, lucky you. The public swallowed it. You're getting what you want. The public is throwing billions at your feet.
Do you even hear yourself? I begin to see now that you're completely clueless about who "artists" are, and that, I think explains your competely twisted, bitter take how they make a living. Not all of them are shrill Michael Moores, if that's what you're getting at. Not all if them are absurd Barbara Streisands. Some of them are hardworking animators, writers, journalists, symphony conductors, and the vast majority of them have a far more decent, civilized, rational and pleasant demeanor than either you or the stereotypes you're holding up as "artists."
This goes for booksellers and movie makers as well. They just have to find a better way.
No, you have to find a better way to convince writers that your insane idea of them only earning an income when they "perform" their work is somehow rational. If you're right (and you're not), then of course all of those non-"obsolete" writers will of course just jump right up, see the wisdom of your view, and start booking coffee houses where they'll no doubt make enough to pay for that new transmission they need for their car, and the vet bill, and the gas they'll need so they can drive all over town getting their own "performances" from every other person they want to entertain and inform them.
I guess I'm done with this now. You think that artists are evil cartoon characters, and that completely illustrates your state of mind.
First, take a moment to consider the context in which I was replying. It was an ill-considered troll feeding moment, and the GP's rhetorical silliness (traitors in the White House, neo-cons destroying space shuttles, our horrible economy, blah blah) got what the commentor wanted - an off-the-cuff jab back. You know, when you reply too briefly and without enough context, the... um... Anonymous Coward Trolling Terrorists win... or something like that.
Seriously, you must know by this point in your life that pretty much nothing is that simple.
Clearly. And the problem with clowns like the guy I was replying to is that you either need to construct a 1000-word history lesson (that he won't even read anyway), and explain the underlying concepts that are worth defending while putting historical compromises/mis-steps in perspective, or you just put in a rhetorical jab that may or may not register at the level at which that person is communicating. I know it's vastly more complicated than that, but actually I do find the basic reality pretty simple. There is no greater force for democracy and liberty, right now, this minute, than the U.S., warts and all. We do now, and have always had to hold our noses while dealing with certain other societies/individuals.
Do I find it frustrating that the Saudis are who they are? Yup. But you'll notice they've managed to avoid seeming bristly and overtly hostile, as a regime, as opposed to those charming Taliban folks, or Saddam, or North Korea, or the delightfully late Yassir Arafat, etc. There are definately strong currents in Saudi Arabia that would like to see both us AND the house of Saud swirl the toilet. That puts the Saudis in that famous enemy-of-my-enemy category. Too late, of course - they could have headed off the bin Laden family's favorite son a long time ago, and didn't. I really don't think they expected him and his followers to become as malignant as they have become.
The idea that anybody could, at this point, still attempt to defend this administration is bizarre enough
I've got all sorts of bones to pick with the administration. But they are the administration. We truly, acually, really are dealing with issues that could make the economic and social impact of 9/11 look trivial, and I have an interest in at least attempting to squash the "traitors in the White House" silliness because that's the stuff that gets circulated more than, say, enormous AIDS support to Africa, or pressuring Syria to get out of Lebannon's internal politics, or continuing to keep China from breathing down Taiwan's neck any more than they already do. Etc.
I loathe Bush's take on most matters related to the sciences (though I like much of the current NASA redirection - but that's another, and mixed discussion). I find him earnest, but definitely a product of his generation, and too much under the sway of the religious circles that he grabbed hold of while shaking off his youthful over-partying excesses. I don't think he wants babies and old people to starve, and I don't think he likes poison water, or wants to see Iran burn, baby burn. But he's the C-in-C, and dealing with an unbelievably difficult moment in history, and there are people out here just saying some damn silly stuff.
I'm not too worried that you've lost all respect for me, since I'll just keep posting my thoughts, however provoked they may be, sometimes, by flamebating nitwits. One of these days I'll learn not to fall for that stuff, or will decide to invest the extra time in making my comments in context even when it will be wasted on the actual person to whom I'm replying. I guess I'm still rather shocked that anybody bothers to read anything I say, so it's not always in the forefront of my mind to ask myself what a wider audience might conclude about me, based on a barbed, late-night exchange made while watching Conan O'Brien and scratching at six new no-doubt global-warming-caused mosquito bites.