No, we still drive on the correct side of the road, despite what Napoleon thought.
I once rented a car in St. Lucia, and nearly killed myself shifting gears with my left hand while on a jungle switchback on the side of a volcano. I guess it left a bad taste in my mouth! Speaking of taste in one's mouth:
Oh, and it's Whisky not Whiskey.
At least, as an unwashed Yank, I didn't refer to people in Scotland as being "Scotch." I understand that's a hanging offense. But you can understand that here in the US we make Bourbon "Whiskey" (see here for evidence I'm not crazy), and that threw me off. By the way, my favorite non-Kentucky-made Whisk(e)y is Lagavulin. I hope that doesn't make me even more of a primative heathen.
what do you call the 20 million Russians who died in WWII, without which Europe at least would be Nazi today; and about 10 million Chinese killed by the Japanese?
I certainly don't mean to minimize the price the Russians paid. I'm suggesting that if we hadn't put the pressure we had on Germany's navy (essentially destroying it) and provided an overwhelming distraction on their western front, the Russians would have had a much healthier Nazi army to deal with. It's a two-way street. Between the US and Russia, they were shut down.
I did mention, by the way, the millions killed in Asia. Perhaps should have been more explicit that it was at the hands of imperial Japan - one would think that goes without saying, but you're right that most people don't even really know it happened.
I agree that it's not very constructive to talk about events even 15 years ago when it comes to the very altered reality we're facing right now (with so many of the players and circumstances of the Cold War gone, and looming communism a dead issue - and looming Islamist extremism very real - and a lot crazier to deal with). I think the Chavez/Venezuela connection is a good example of the new policy challenges, and it's certainly worth noting that no matter how much he rants about making the US "bite the dust" (that was last week, I believe), we're not down there invading - no matter how convenient the oil supply would be. The people that think the US is just some invade-and-take-the-oil operation are completely missing the ramifications of the risk that China will "invade" places like Venezuela with cash (heh - our cash, mostly, from our huge trade deficit) and own that operation in ways much more substantial than the way in which Bush's detractors seem to think we "own" the oil in the Middle East.
I hope this is meant as irony, because otherwise it's kind of sad
No, sad would be the lack of democracy in Japan, or Germany. Or throughout eastern Europe. Happily that's not the case. Happier still will be democracy throughout the Middle East - not just in Israel, and partially in Egypt. That, of course, is the whole damn point of sticking it out in Iraq. Even the Saudis just started having municipal elections... these things take time.
don't think that was because of terrorism, but rather because the US forces were unable to deal with guerilla's
The last straw was the shoot-down of the Blackhawk in Mogadishu. If you'll recall, Somalia was (and still is) a hot spot for al Qaeda supported and trained insurgency. Having been deprived of their cozy little spot in Afghanistan, they're looking to set up shop in other chaotic places. That Clinton didn't send in major troops to make that problem go away right after the embassy bombings is a damn shame, really. But the bad news is that the locals and the al Qaeda people there spurring them on remain convinced that shooting up a helicopter crew was all it took to run the US out of the peacekeeping mission there. In practical effect, that's true. Just like blowing up some barracks in Beruit would be seen by the people that did it as all it took to remove our Marine presence from that trouble spot. That's the conclusion they reasonably drew, and is exactly the sort of thing that has people like Zarqawi convinced that enough car bombs in Iraq will eventually get him that country as a playground for the mysoginistic, medeival-minded theocratic thugocracy that he'd like to see running the entire Middle East.
it's also one of the biggest countries to overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with a pro-US dictator whenever that fits better into their goals.
Help me out, here, with some post-Cold War examples. That's crucial, because stopping the tyranny of the Soviet Union was paramount. Ask the folks living in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland etc what they think of the results of playing chess with the Soviets in their proxy/puppet conflicts in places like Central America and Asia over the last decades of their influence. It's over now. The true socialist crazies (say, Chavez in Venezuela) are now having to get support from immitation communists (like China) that are really just totalitarian-run emerging capitalist economies that won't tolerate (as a population) that crap for much longer. I'm amused that people like Chavez think China's support is idealogical.
Training is what counts, and from what I see on the news (including abc) it appears that some parts of the US Army/Navy require more of that.
No question. Every single mistake made by young people living in a pressure-cooker environment where the locals want your help while contrary-minded people from third-party countries lurk around building car bombs to kill both the peple they're trying to help and the troops there to do it... well, mistakes happen. We've shot up our own people, shot up our allies, and been shot at by our allies. But those are so much the exception, rather that the rule, that it's really a shame it's all that some media outlets can bring themselves to talk about.
How about those clowns west of Baghdad last week? You know, the ones who we filmed setting up a mortar launcher in a school yard and launching rounds pretty much arbitrarily into a residential area. The predator filming them got them loading their gear back into their car, and then driving a ways back to their (heh!) "safe house." The team flying the predator had a little chat with the people dictating rules of engagement, and then used the predator's onboard hardware to hit the building. There were secondary explosions (meaning, the building was full of more mortar rounds, etc), and 14 insurgents were taken out of the equation. No troop had to be sent in, and no raging gun battle had to roll through the streets of that neighborhood. I'm sure the blown up ammo stash was not insignificant to the people living a block away, but those same people had to be aware that it was a building with more than a dozen guys regularly coming and going with weapons.
My point is that the ability to do what I just described, and be that surgical about it, hugely eclipses the inevitable guys-on-the-ground difficulties that soldiers have always faced. Am I in favor of even more training? Of course. I wish nothing ever went wrong for anyone having to deal with that situation (other than for the twits that think Allah hates an elected government, and that only blowing up kids with car bombs will make Allah happy).
You know there are tons of Microsoft money and lots of people who's sole job it is to convince governments that $400 worth of software is cheaper than free right?
You don't need an MS salesrep to convince the people that have to write their operational budget that day-to-day living with an application for which you can't hire reasonably priced local support, or for which interaction with another large user base engaged in (literally) mission critical activities is no bargain. Inertia plays a role, here. It's the same reason they still drive on the wrong side of the road, I suppose. Great whiskey, though. Ach!
Was World War II just a fluke or was it a flash of the selfish inhumanity really lies within each of us?
Would that be the humanity that started the war and rounded up millions for death in Europe and Asia... or the humanity that made huge sacrifices to stop it (you know, the Allies? Mostly, the US and Britain?).
What do we need to do?
Continue to put more resources into technology and education. Pump more investment into more businesses in China and India so that they also can become more prosperous and efficient, and also slow down the rate at which they reproduce people, just as the west has done. Build nukes for more power that doesn't involve hydrocarbons.
Subject to congress. "Neo-Con" scarcely describes that crowd. The just-signed transportation bill is full of billions in pork sponsored and demanded by reps and senators on both sides of the aisle.
Where are those nuclear WMD?
You mean the efforts we thought were farther along, in Saddam's pursuit thereof? That would be "we thought" as in, we and the intelligence agencies of a dozen other countries (including France, Germany, Russia, and so on). Of course, Saddam was also being lied to by his own scientists and thought he had things they hadn't even produced. But his behavior, including his need to WMD-posture against rival Iran, and his constant game playing with UN inspectors, sent very credible signals.
Where is the democracy over at Iraq
You must have missed the part where eight million Iraqis voted a few months back. Or the part where they're in the middle of drafting a consitution. You know - a constitution. The thing it took the US's founders until 1787 to get wrapped up. Years, not months. The Iraqis are moving along really well.
Why were we attack on 9/11
Because the US is the single greatest defender of democracy in the history of the world. And because in the preceding years, they saw terrorism work like a charm. It chased the US out of Beruit. It caused Clinton to tuck tail and leave Somalia to the warlords. It went unpunished as hundreds were killed in the Africa embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole. And, of course, the WTC had been attacked before, with every intention of knocking it down the first time, and that time they failed. Read the damn news.
Why the gag order on Sibel Edwards
Because detailed information about the intelligence provided to our military leadership is not something that we want to advertise. The people that are covered by that intelligence are the ones that continue to attack - or did you not notice London and Egypt last month? Telling those people what sort of communications we can tap, or how we gather that information is crazy.
Why a 2 front war when we have not caught Bin Ladin yet
Because we have the most powerful, best-trained military in the world, and can work on two things at once.
Why are several traitors being tolerated in the white house
Because you're making that BS up. If that's your standard, then also ask why half the democratic seniority on half a dozen committees in congress are "traitors."
Where are the anthrax manufactuers who spread it after 9/11?
Like most fairly clever criminals, hard to find.
Why is it, that we only lose shuttles during neo-cons times
Unbelievable. OK, how about this: because we fly them then. Why did the only Apollo astronauts to die do so while a democrat was running things? Um... maybe because that has nothing to do with it?
How is our national budget again
Recovering from a recession that started during the Clinton administration.
How is our economy
See above. And, it has added 4 million jobs since that recession bottomed out. It's also the strongest, most productive economy in the world. Unemployment is below historical averages. As an example, unemployment was higher during the Clinton administration. Trying to ignore stuff like that, or afraid to admit that there are such things as business cycles? In the meantime, we have incredibly low interest rates, the highest ever rate of home ownership, and more people working than ever before.
Neocons refuse to accept blame.
For what? Your list was nonsense, so you'll have to try again.
We're operating under a framework of copyright law. When you pick up that CD or DVD, that (c) on it is the contract. If you don't want to participate in that contract, just don't consume the product. So much of our civilization revolves around the production, presentation, and use of creatively produced or other valuable information that we have said, essentially, that those who produce it are its owners. Those people are more than welcome to say there are no strings attached, and often do. But that's the producer's option, not anyone who comes along and thinks otherwise. Why would we default towards a position of presumed ownership? Because otherwise too many people do exactly what the producer of the material can least afford: run off with it and, in spreading it around contrary to the creator's wishes, remove from it its ability to compensate the producer for the invested time.
I'm under no obligation to support a person's desired business model
Sure you are. You don't have to patronize that person, but you can't simply decide that your "business" model (say, simply ignoring the artist's terms) is the valid one, and taking/reproducing the material without permission. If I open a store renting out widgets by the hour, and my business model is that I charge for that, you cannot alter my business model (by using my services without paying) without facing the consequences. You sure as hell don't have to even visit my store... but if you want the service I'm providing, you either do business with me, or in insisting that I must deliver those services without compensation, you're saying I'm your slave. And since we don't function that way, you can choose to either honor the business model, or go away. It's the same with artists.
Of course, you're off the hook there, because with your sterling ethics, you'd never want the entertainment produced by an artist that embraces the concept of owning their work.
I want the original in the form of a live performance. That is what I'll pay for.
Fine - as long as you don't consume the work of people who never perform live in person outside of the conditions under which they make their performances available to you. Obviously radio, legal downloads, etc., all provide for ways to meet the artists' requirements (in the form of royalties). It must be a shame, though, that you never get to see really good films in for-pay setting.
If someone wants to make a million dollar movie, then he'll have to pool his money with associates. His motivation means nothing. He'll just have to be motivated by wanting to see a million dollar movie when it's finished.
We're not talking about their motivation. We're talking about the fact that their requirement is that they are paid for their work, or you don't get to consume it. You're not required to be part of their audience, but there are terms associated with being so. They are motivated to have a million-dollar movie when they're done, though, because that is (assuming they know their audience and market timing well enough) the product with which they will earn back their investment. Obviously, a poor product deserves what it (doesn't) get. But a really shining piece of work isn't your property just because you say it is. Would you really be comfortable looking, say, David Lynch or Quentin Terantino, or Ron Howard in the eye and telling them that, "Gee, that's a really nice film you've just made there, and I'll be enjoying a ripped-off torrent of it over wine and cheese tonight unless you can arrange for a personal 'performance' tonight when I want to see it, and then I'll give you ten dollars."
just like I have to perform my line of work to get paid myself
Can you even contemplate a line of work where the thing you produce doesn't pay you back unless it produces a certain level of usage? It's all about who wants to take the risk. So
My head has long told me that this is an unsupported conclusion of the pro-corporate forces that are trying to control that slippery product called "music". There is no proof whatsoever that touring is only possible due to the promotions of the record companies.
Rather than use "your head," why not use your eyes? There's a reason that most "touring" bands that are not tied in with a larger business process that's also generating airplay and sales of recordings are living out of the back of an old van, down by the river. Playing in an endless series of bars, and living (literally) off of peanuts is not the living that many musicians hope for. Why do you suppose that so many of them end every set begging the drunks in the audience to see Vinny, by the door on the way out, who is selling their CDs? Of course you can tour absent a larger promotional packaging, but the big tours, filling large venues, are part of much larger business projects. The costs and risks are simply too high, otherwise. Most bands couldn't possibly even afford the insurance associated with larger-scale road productions, absent the operational backing of a larger production company. It makes perfect sense that the company the artist is already using for their other business purposes would be the ones to work with on travel, booking, labor union contracting, customs, and a jillion other logistical and cash-up-front issues.
Firstly, it's completely obvious and true that touring itself is its own promotion mechanism.
In terms of any sort of rent-paying success, only if you've already got a reputation. Sometimes that can only happen when you've already had airplay - because your music immediately attracts an audience. You think Steely Dan needed to tour to earn a living? No, they were a studio band that only toured much, much later, and only drew nostalgic audiences because of decades of airplay. If that band simply started out driving from bar to bar, they would probably never have bothered. They were pros that didn't want to live like that.
it's far more likely that touring itself was the cause of the rise of the record companies
Complete crap, and the facts are already there in front of anyone bothering to look. The fact that you even use a phrase like "far more likely" means that you're coloring your comments with how you wish things had gone so that it would back up your muddled philosophical position. Radio was the rise of the record companies. People heard music on the air and went out to buy the album. Period. The artists and their partner record companies depended hugely on airplay to create a market for those sales. Word of mouth helped, but a lot of acts only made personal appearances in order to produce press coverage that went towards boosting their main source of revenue: record sales. Just like movie stars doing talk shows. People only rarely went to "see" the Beatles - they went city to city to play some (scarcely profitable at the door, but that didn't matter) gigs, but reaped enormous results in the subsequent record sales.
that perversity called Western civilization
Presuming you prefer, say, the Cultural Revolution approach things? That really worked out well for China. They're just now starting to enjoy their blossoming prosperity and personal chances at liberty because they beat that nonsense back down person by person (despite the totalitarian socialists in power)... embracing a more Western approach to commerce and daily life. And what shock - the most "westernized" part of that society (Taiwan) is the most stable and prosperous, kills off the fewest of its student protesters, and probably made at least some of the hardware that's letting you read slashdot.
Of course, this supports the "amateur" nature of sustainable music production, and from other posts you are definitely against that
False dichotomy. There's nothing at all stopping amateurs from doing whate
Your concept implies that I should pay AOL for their CDs
No, I'm saying that you should pay what the producer of the product, service, content, entertainment - anything - asks, or go elsewhere for what you want. AOL doesn't want to sell you their install software - they want to sell you their service, and that's why they ask you to pass the CD along to your friends. If the artist says, "I want you to enjoy my music, but the way I'm going to be able to spend my waking hours making it all day long, instead of flipping burgers, and earn a living doing so, is through airplay royalties and CD sales," then you have to either respect that artist's wishes, or admit that you don't respect the artist when you don't abide by their wishes, as it relates to what they spend their time creating.
Not sure how that could be more simple. That's like saying you respect me, but just not enough to keep you from stiffing me on the agreed payment after I've mowed your lawn. It doesn't matter if that's a freakin' theft, infringement, blah-blah analogy or not: the point is that if an artist chooses a certain business model, you're being intellectually dishonest if you say you respect the artist (especially enough to choose them to entertain you), but just not enough to respect them in the one thing that they chiefly ask of their potential audiences (in this example, that they pay for their products).
Out of curiosity, how does your "performance" concept work when it comes to a film that costs millions of dollars to produce? Is the DVD an advertisement, encouraging you to... what, go see the broadway version of the movie? How about: if you don't like that Peter Jackson copyrighted his LOTR movies, that it means you don't like his business model, and so you don't choose him to be your entertainer, and let him recoup his huge expenses from those people that are willing to pay a few dollars for their experience of thousands of people's efforts?
The medium is not an ad, it's a delivery mechanism. What would you call files licensed from iTunes? Are those ads, too? And what about a fine art printmaker who produces, by hand, 250 prints? Are those ads?
Here's an idea: if you don't like what the artist calls their products, admit that you don't like the artist, and turn elsewhere. No doubt some indy film maker that doesn't want to earn anything for his work will soon make a film as fantastic as Jackson's, and not worry about whether anyone pays for it. I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I'm sure you'll let me know who that would be.
and why there are more reasons then that to go buy a DVD or CD
So, if the person who invests huge money in producing that content thinks you're right, and that they'll be better able to pay back their investors if more people get the work without paying for it, then surely they can waive their copyright and say, "Hey! Please feel free to copy this!" But for those that find that their work sells only a few copies before it's torrented all over the place and sales fall way off - why not leave them the choice?
And, for those people so idealogically horrified by artists that want to retain copyright control, surely they don't like those people anyway, right? Why would they want to be entertained by someone for whom they have such disdain? That's the real heart of the hypocrisy, I think. The people that are so sure that free distribution of the creative work is better for everyone (including the people who are trying to earn a living from it)... if those people are making such a good case, then why aren't more artists giving away their work? Some are. The vast majority are not, or do so only under very specific circumstances. Why? Because the people that say it should be free are not very convincing about how the artist will be able to own a decent home or send their children to a nice college (or just buy a very nice new piece of digital recording equipment or $50,000 video editor for that matter) based on free distribution of their work.
Why not watch it in a cinema, thats what I did (regardless of the fact that I already had a copy of it before I saw it in the cinema)
If there were no copyright protection on the film, a cinema chain would be under no obligation to compensate the film maker. Likewise on DVDs. If the artist can't control the way in which they sell the use of their work, they'll never be able to invest what it takes to produce it - especially the big stuff (sticking with the Jackson example).
This still does not require copyright
Right - so long as everyone around the world has the integrity to pay for the work anyway. That won't happen.
Not that I don't think that Microsoft isn't doing this out of self-serving long term planning, but I do agree with the action (perhaps not their guiding principle).
What's wrong with the guiding principle of a company acting in its own interest? MS will have a better future if people are happier when sitting down in front of their products and not getting killed with spam. MS will have lower costs if their own Hotmail, MSN, and other systems aren't choking on spam. If every company, and every person, acted rationally in their own interests, we'd be way, way ahead of the game. And no, I don't think that the spammers are acting rationally in their own interests - they're parasites that are trying to make a buck off of a set of (technical, cultural) vulnerabilities, and it's ultimately a very destructive behavior.
Under current law it is NOT stealing, although the powers that be would love it that you perceive it that way.
This is my all-time favorite distraction comment. You know, argue the semantics of "theft" vs. "infringement" and hope that nobody notices that your purpose is to make everyone comfortable with ripping off artists, no matter what you call it. It's wrong. Period.
I'd love to see the typical P2P-using teenager stand in front of their "favorite" artist and tell them that they love their work, and have all of it, but don't respect them enough to pay what the artist is asking for that work. But the people who rip off those artists know they're abusing the people they say they respect, and they'd never be able to look them in the eye.
What was the last time I payed an artist to do something regardless of copyright? About 5 days ago now (last saterday while watching a live performance)
Boy, I could sure go for the epic presenation of a huge work of literature. I think I'll call up Peter Jackson and see when his ensemble cast will be performing the entire LOTR trilogy at my local playhouse this month. What? That sort of material can't be performed live? Huh. I guess we'll just have to give it up, then. And all of that trash that Pixar creates... pointless, no question!
How did Homer (or the many homeric poets) support themselves before the days of copyright?
That's like asking how he kept his dairy products fresh before we had refrigeration. You're trotting out a guy who died millenia ago to make your point, and not thinking that perhaps he would have been the Peter Jackson of his day, producing even more epic material and depending on royalties to produce even more - for an even wider audience.
I always enjoy being told that we need to "think out of the box" by people (especially anonymous cowards) who basically spend their day trying justify being too cheap to pay artists for their work.
I'm sorry, if you're going to be rational, you're going to have find another forum. Slashdot is reserved for people who don't think about what it actually costs to be a creative artist or to entertain people, and who assume that they'll keep getting Peter Jackson-grade movies even when Peter Jackson isn't allowed to attract financing based on an informed gamble about income after the "performing" of the material. What do these people think? That we should quit having things like his recent LOTR films and go back to strictly live plays? I love the theatre. But I also love films that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. Wow, oh wow, oh wow are people clueless. He'd be better off asking what Homer would do if he had the communications tools we have now, and whether he'd like the idea of a royalties contract now that it's possible.
Gosh... I'm getting a little choked up, here! I rarely run into anyone that actually, well, feels the same way about this. No, strike that. I rarely run into someone Don Quixote-ish enough (like me) to think that saying something about this in the crazy slashdot sanitarium is worth the few moments it takes to type.
The Open Source Crazies either really do think that the merits of OS somehow also apply to, say, the latest Coldplay CD, or don't think that at all, but are trying to use it as cover so they can at least say they don't feel bad about ripping it off. It's just all so transparent, and they're SO missing the point about what will happen if artists who invest months or years on a project lose any prospect of getting paid based on the success/popularity of the work. Thanks for having a clue, and using it.
That has nothing to do with the circularity of your original argument.
Which wasn't the case, and which you haven't demonstrated. I said:
It is a property right, because it protects that which people have created - their property - should they choose to exercise that right.
To use different words: It's referred to as a property right because what it does is defend your rights to your property. You can make use of that right, or not. There's nothing "circular" about any of that - it's an explanation of the term's meaning, and mention of your option to use it, or not.
You can choose not to take advantage of the government's offer to stick its nose into the affairs of those to which you have sold or shown information that you produced.
The government's not "offering" to do that any more than it is any time two people have a disagreement about any contract. If two people enter into a contract, and someone decides to blow off the terms of that contract, then the injured party (to stay legal) can only turn to the courts for relief. The only other alternatives are to say that contracts mean nothing, or that enforcement of them should be left up to private action, which would be nothing but trouble.
You don't get the information age. If your information is wanted, you create far more opportunity for yourself by putting it out in the world freely with your name on it.
OK, so you've created something, and put it out there with no strings attached. Now you have the opportunity to... what? Do that again? Charge for the next thing you create? That's an option, obviously. But I'm responding to a comment that indicates that we're all moving to a new environment in which all things move around for "free." Not just some garage band's first recording, but all information. There is no opportunity to make a living when there's no mechanism for compensation.
For example, a small artist is far better off doing every thing possible to have his music creations distributed freely to make a name for himself than suing the crap out of anyone who coppies hopeing that he gets some kind of million dollar record deal
You're describing a false dichotomy. There's a vast middle ground between working for free and suing people for a living. It's called selling your work in a marketplace that recognizes the value of the creation in question. We have that, still, sort of.
Commoditisation of a market happens when the service of that market becomes more valuable than the item that market is dealing with.
Exactly. And when an artist asks to be paid for her work, but the market is distorted because thousands (or millions) of her "fans" choose not to pay her for the entertainment she's providing, they've indicated that her work has no value. They value it enough to look around for a way to lay hands on the creative work outside the terms that the artist has asked them to respect, but that's it. Of course, the stunning hypocrisy of saying they like the artist while simultaneously giving her the finger is always pretty grim to watch. I like to imagine someone doing that in person: "Gee, I love your music. I have all of your recordings. I really respect your creativity and intellect. Just, um, not enough to pay you what you're asking. By the way, when's your next creative work coming out? I want it. Just not enough to pay you for it."
Not at all. Copyright protects your property if you choose to use it. You don't have to use it, of course. If you find that you're serving your purposes better by not protecting your material, then there's nothing stopping you.
as the companies that treat unrestricted copying over the internet like a threat will loose, and those that treat it like an advantage will win.
People who create information for a living do not benefit when they cannot be paid for their work. And if the people who produce professsional quality information (novelists, musicians, film makers, and so on) have to, say, flip burgers because everyone except them get the "advantage" of their work being unpaid for, then we'll have a society where the best brains and talent either go to waste, or are your pet information/entertainment slaves.
When you look at copyrights like a government regulation that controlls how people use information, rather than some kind of "property" right
But why would you look at it that way? Because it bolsters the whole "information wants to be free" pablum that's used to make people feel better about ripping off artists? Copyrights aren't government regulation, because the copyright holder can do whatever they want with it, including waive it entirely. It is a property right, because it protects that which people have created - their property - should they choose to exercise that right.
as information becomes commoditized, that will be even more so
Why would you consider creative work a commodity? Why would you want or expect that to be more so? The only explanation I can think of would be that it makes it easier to excuse taking it without paying its creators what they ask for it. If people actually earned a living with all of the energy they put into coming up with new ways to justify pirating music, they wouldn't feel too cheap to actually pay their supposedly favorite musicians what those musicians say they want for their work.
If some extremely cool 3rd-party controller/widget maker just doesn't want to get into the MS zone, then they can just focus their ultra-cool talents, superior pricing, and fantastic wonderfulness somewhere else. And then no one will want the walled-off fancy ivory tower product, and that will be that.
Or not. But the point is, it's a wildly competitive product space. It they can't attract the right 3rd party stuff at a good price, and assure their users that 3rd party stuff is going to be something other than a rip-off, then they'll lose. Let them, or support them. It's a choice - and the choice is X or not X. S or not. N or not.
If it was my product, I suppose I'd probably also have an interest in not seeing its reputation tainted by someone's experience with a cheesy, ill-behaved, flaky third-party add-on. Because some 10 year old is going to come back from his friend's house talking Dad into buying him a Sony box since the Xbox kept hanging up when they were using the Acme Kick Boxing Motion Sensor Gloves that only cost $10 on eBay.
Er... I'm having a little trouble with that analogy. Obviously you know what you're getting into when you enter a fancy restaurant, just like you know what you're getting into when you enter a Spendy University(tm). I'm guessing that everyone assumes the $1000 on books for a semester will be so lost in the years of student loan payments that no one is going to worry about it. Maybe not. But just like schools, expensive restaurants can be quickly researched online... I haven't gone to an expensive dinner in a long time without a quick trip to epinions or some other venue for a sense of how it will play out. Me != Stingy, Me = Picky.
Slashdot Mirror
No, we still drive on the correct side of the road, despite what Napoleon thought.
I once rented a car in St. Lucia, and nearly killed myself shifting gears with my left hand while on a jungle switchback on the side of a volcano. I guess it left a bad taste in my mouth! Speaking of taste in one's mouth:
Oh, and it's Whisky not Whiskey.
At least, as an unwashed Yank, I didn't refer to people in Scotland as being "Scotch." I understand that's a hanging offense. But you can understand that here in the US we make Bourbon "Whiskey" (see here for evidence I'm not crazy), and that threw me off. By the way, my favorite non-Kentucky-made Whisk(e)y is Lagavulin. I hope that doesn't make me even more of a primative heathen.
what do you call the 20 million Russians who died in WWII, without which Europe at least would be Nazi today; and about 10 million Chinese killed by the Japanese?
I certainly don't mean to minimize the price the Russians paid. I'm suggesting that if we hadn't put the pressure we had on Germany's navy (essentially destroying it) and provided an overwhelming distraction on their western front, the Russians would have had a much healthier Nazi army to deal with. It's a two-way street. Between the US and Russia, they were shut down.
I did mention, by the way, the millions killed in Asia. Perhaps should have been more explicit that it was at the hands of imperial Japan - one would think that goes without saying, but you're right that most people don't even really know it happened.
I agree that it's not very constructive to talk about events even 15 years ago when it comes to the very altered reality we're facing right now (with so many of the players and circumstances of the Cold War gone, and looming communism a dead issue - and looming Islamist extremism very real - and a lot crazier to deal with). I think the Chavez/Venezuela connection is a good example of the new policy challenges, and it's certainly worth noting that no matter how much he rants about making the US "bite the dust" (that was last week, I believe), we're not down there invading - no matter how convenient the oil supply would be. The people that think the US is just some invade-and-take-the-oil operation are completely missing the ramifications of the risk that China will "invade" places like Venezuela with cash (heh - our cash, mostly, from our huge trade deficit) and own that operation in ways much more substantial than the way in which Bush's detractors seem to think we "own" the oil in the Middle East.
I hope this is meant as irony, because otherwise it's kind of sad
No, sad would be the lack of democracy in Japan, or Germany. Or throughout eastern Europe. Happily that's not the case. Happier still will be democracy throughout the Middle East - not just in Israel, and partially in Egypt. That, of course, is the whole damn point of sticking it out in Iraq. Even the Saudis just started having municipal elections... these things take time.
don't think that was because of terrorism, but rather because the US forces were unable to deal with guerilla's
The last straw was the shoot-down of the Blackhawk in Mogadishu. If you'll recall, Somalia was (and still is) a hot spot for al Qaeda supported and trained insurgency. Having been deprived of their cozy little spot in Afghanistan, they're looking to set up shop in other chaotic places. That Clinton didn't send in major troops to make that problem go away right after the embassy bombings is a damn shame, really. But the bad news is that the locals and the al Qaeda people there spurring them on remain convinced that shooting up a helicopter crew was all it took to run the US out of the peacekeeping mission there. In practical effect, that's true. Just like blowing up some barracks in Beruit would be seen by the people that did it as all it took to remove our Marine presence from that trouble spot. That's the conclusion they reasonably drew, and is exactly the sort of thing that has people like Zarqawi convinced that enough car bombs in Iraq will eventually get him that country as a playground for the mysoginistic, medeival-minded theocratic thugocracy that he'd like to see running the entire Middle East.
it's also one of the biggest countries to overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with a pro-US dictator whenever that fits better into their goals.
Help me out, here, with some post-Cold War examples. That's crucial, because stopping the tyranny of the Soviet Union was paramount. Ask the folks living in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland etc what they think of the results of playing chess with the Soviets in their proxy/puppet conflicts in places like Central America and Asia over the last decades of their influence. It's over now. The true socialist crazies (say, Chavez in Venezuela) are now having to get support from immitation communists (like China) that are really just totalitarian-run emerging capitalist economies that won't tolerate (as a population) that crap for much longer. I'm amused that people like Chavez think China's support is idealogical.
Training is what counts, and from what I see on the news (including abc) it appears that some parts of the US Army/Navy require more of that.
No question. Every single mistake made by young people living in a pressure-cooker environment where the locals want your help while contrary-minded people from third-party countries lurk around building car bombs to kill both the peple they're trying to help and the troops there to do it... well, mistakes happen. We've shot up our own people, shot up our allies, and been shot at by our allies. But those are so much the exception, rather that the rule, that it's really a shame it's all that some media outlets can bring themselves to talk about.
How about those clowns west of Baghdad last week? You know, the ones who we filmed setting up a mortar launcher in a school yard and launching rounds pretty much arbitrarily into a residential area. The predator filming them got them loading their gear back into their car, and then driving a ways back to their (heh!) "safe house." The team flying the predator had a little chat with the people dictating rules of engagement, and then used the predator's onboard hardware to hit the building. There were secondary explosions (meaning, the building was full of more mortar rounds, etc), and 14 insurgents were taken out of the equation. No troop had to be sent in, and no raging gun battle had to roll through the streets of that neighborhood. I'm sure the blown up ammo stash was not insignificant to the people living a block away, but those same people had to be aware that it was a building with more than a dozen guys regularly coming and going with weapons.
My point is that the ability to do what I just described, and be that surgical about it, hugely eclipses the inevitable guys-on-the-ground difficulties that soldiers have always faced. Am I in favor of even more training? Of course. I wish nothing ever went wrong for anyone having to deal with that situation (other than for the twits that think Allah hates an elected government, and that only blowing up kids with car bombs will make Allah happy).
You know there are tons of Microsoft money and lots of people who's sole job it is to convince governments that $400 worth of software is cheaper than free right?
You don't need an MS salesrep to convince the people that have to write their operational budget that day-to-day living with an application for which you can't hire reasonably priced local support, or for which interaction with another large user base engaged in (literally) mission critical activities is no bargain. Inertia plays a role, here. It's the same reason they still drive on the wrong side of the road, I suppose. Great whiskey, though. Ach!
Was World War II just a fluke or was it a flash of the selfish inhumanity really lies within each of us?
Would that be the humanity that started the war and rounded up millions for death in Europe and Asia... or the humanity that made huge sacrifices to stop it (you know, the Allies? Mostly, the US and Britain?).
What do we need to do?
Continue to put more resources into technology and education. Pump more investment into more businesses in China and India so that they also can become more prosperous and efficient, and also slow down the rate at which they reproduce people, just as the west has done. Build nukes for more power that doesn't involve hydrocarbons.
Oh: and quit whining like little schoolgirls.
How is the budget?
Subject to congress. "Neo-Con" scarcely describes that crowd. The just-signed transportation bill is full of billions in pork sponsored and demanded by reps and senators on both sides of the aisle.
Where are those nuclear WMD?
You mean the efforts we thought were farther along, in Saddam's pursuit thereof? That would be "we thought" as in, we and the intelligence agencies of a dozen other countries (including France, Germany, Russia, and so on). Of course, Saddam was also being lied to by his own scientists and thought he had things they hadn't even produced. But his behavior, including his need to WMD-posture against rival Iran, and his constant game playing with UN inspectors, sent very credible signals.
Where is the democracy over at Iraq
You must have missed the part where eight million Iraqis voted a few months back. Or the part where they're in the middle of drafting a consitution. You know - a constitution. The thing it took the US's founders until 1787 to get wrapped up. Years, not months. The Iraqis are moving along really well.
Why were we attack on 9/11
Because the US is the single greatest defender of democracy in the history of the world. And because in the preceding years, they saw terrorism work like a charm. It chased the US out of Beruit. It caused Clinton to tuck tail and leave Somalia to the warlords. It went unpunished as hundreds were killed in the Africa embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole. And, of course, the WTC had been attacked before, with every intention of knocking it down the first time, and that time they failed. Read the damn news.
Why the gag order on Sibel Edwards
Because detailed information about the intelligence provided to our military leadership is not something that we want to advertise. The people that are covered by that intelligence are the ones that continue to attack - or did you not notice London and Egypt last month? Telling those people what sort of communications we can tap, or how we gather that information is crazy.
Why a 2 front war when we have not caught Bin Ladin yet
Because we have the most powerful, best-trained military in the world, and can work on two things at once.
Why are several traitors being tolerated in the white house
Because you're making that BS up. If that's your standard, then also ask why half the democratic seniority on half a dozen committees in congress are "traitors."
Where are the anthrax manufactuers who spread it after 9/11?
Like most fairly clever criminals, hard to find.
Why is it, that we only lose shuttles during neo-cons times
Unbelievable. OK, how about this: because we fly them then. Why did the only Apollo astronauts to die do so while a democrat was running things? Um... maybe because that has nothing to do with it?
How is our national budget again
Recovering from a recession that started during the Clinton administration.
How is our economy
See above. And, it has added 4 million jobs since that recession bottomed out. It's also the strongest, most productive economy in the world. Unemployment is below historical averages. As an example, unemployment was higher during the Clinton administration. Trying to ignore stuff like that, or afraid to admit that there are such things as business cycles? In the meantime, we have incredibly low interest rates, the highest ever rate of home ownership, and more people working than ever before.
Neocons refuse to accept blame.
For what? Your list was nonsense, so you'll have to try again.
I made so such agreement with the artist
We're operating under a framework of copyright law. When you pick up that CD or DVD, that (c) on it is the contract. If you don't want to participate in that contract, just don't consume the product. So much of our civilization revolves around the production, presentation, and use of creatively produced or other valuable information that we have said, essentially, that those who produce it are its owners. Those people are more than welcome to say there are no strings attached, and often do. But that's the producer's option, not anyone who comes along and thinks otherwise. Why would we default towards a position of presumed ownership? Because otherwise too many people do exactly what the producer of the material can least afford: run off with it and, in spreading it around contrary to the creator's wishes, remove from it its ability to compensate the producer for the invested time.
I'm under no obligation to support a person's desired business model
Sure you are. You don't have to patronize that person, but you can't simply decide that your "business" model (say, simply ignoring the artist's terms) is the valid one, and taking/reproducing the material without permission. If I open a store renting out widgets by the hour, and my business model is that I charge for that, you cannot alter my business model (by using my services without paying) without facing the consequences. You sure as hell don't have to even visit my store... but if you want the service I'm providing, you either do business with me, or in insisting that I must deliver those services without compensation, you're saying I'm your slave. And since we don't function that way, you can choose to either honor the business model, or go away. It's the same with artists.
Of course, you're off the hook there, because with your sterling ethics, you'd never want the entertainment produced by an artist that embraces the concept of owning their work.
I want the original in the form of a live performance. That is what I'll pay for.
Fine - as long as you don't consume the work of people who never perform live in person outside of the conditions under which they make their performances available to you. Obviously radio, legal downloads, etc., all provide for ways to meet the artists' requirements (in the form of royalties). It must be a shame, though, that you never get to see really good films in for-pay setting.
If someone wants to make a million dollar movie, then he'll have to pool his money with associates. His motivation means nothing. He'll just have to be motivated by wanting to see a million dollar movie when it's finished.
We're not talking about their motivation. We're talking about the fact that their requirement is that they are paid for their work, or you don't get to consume it. You're not required to be part of their audience, but there are terms associated with being so. They are motivated to have a million-dollar movie when they're done, though, because that is (assuming they know their audience and market timing well enough) the product with which they will earn back their investment. Obviously, a poor product deserves what it (doesn't) get. But a really shining piece of work isn't your property just because you say it is. Would you really be comfortable looking, say, David Lynch or Quentin Terantino, or Ron Howard in the eye and telling them that, "Gee, that's a really nice film you've just made there, and I'll be enjoying a ripped-off torrent of it over wine and cheese tonight unless you can arrange for a personal 'performance' tonight when I want to see it, and then I'll give you ten dollars."
just like I have to perform my line of work to get paid myself
Can you even contemplate a line of work where the thing you produce doesn't pay you back unless it produces a certain level of usage? It's all about who wants to take the risk. So
My head has long told me that this is an unsupported conclusion of the pro-corporate forces that are trying to control that slippery product called "music". There is no proof whatsoever that touring is only possible due to the promotions of the record companies.
Rather than use "your head," why not use your eyes? There's a reason that most "touring" bands that are not tied in with a larger business process that's also generating airplay and sales of recordings are living out of the back of an old van, down by the river. Playing in an endless series of bars, and living (literally) off of peanuts is not the living that many musicians hope for. Why do you suppose that so many of them end every set begging the drunks in the audience to see Vinny, by the door on the way out, who is selling their CDs? Of course you can tour absent a larger promotional packaging, but the big tours, filling large venues, are part of much larger business projects. The costs and risks are simply too high, otherwise. Most bands couldn't possibly even afford the insurance associated with larger-scale road productions, absent the operational backing of a larger production company. It makes perfect sense that the company the artist is already using for their other business purposes would be the ones to work with on travel, booking, labor union contracting, customs, and a jillion other logistical and cash-up-front issues.
Firstly, it's completely obvious and true that touring itself is its own promotion mechanism.
In terms of any sort of rent-paying success, only if you've already got a reputation. Sometimes that can only happen when you've already had airplay - because your music immediately attracts an audience. You think Steely Dan needed to tour to earn a living? No, they were a studio band that only toured much, much later, and only drew nostalgic audiences because of decades of airplay. If that band simply started out driving from bar to bar, they would probably never have bothered. They were pros that didn't want to live like that.
it's far more likely that touring itself was the cause of the rise of the record companies
Complete crap, and the facts are already there in front of anyone bothering to look. The fact that you even use a phrase like "far more likely" means that you're coloring your comments with how you wish things had gone so that it would back up your muddled philosophical position. Radio was the rise of the record companies. People heard music on the air and went out to buy the album. Period. The artists and their partner record companies depended hugely on airplay to create a market for those sales. Word of mouth helped, but a lot of acts only made personal appearances in order to produce press coverage that went towards boosting their main source of revenue: record sales. Just like movie stars doing talk shows. People only rarely went to "see" the Beatles - they went city to city to play some (scarcely profitable at the door, but that didn't matter) gigs, but reaped enormous results in the subsequent record sales.
that perversity called Western civilization
Presuming you prefer, say, the Cultural Revolution approach things? That really worked out well for China. They're just now starting to enjoy their blossoming prosperity and personal chances at liberty because they beat that nonsense back down person by person (despite the totalitarian socialists in power)... embracing a more Western approach to commerce and daily life. And what shock - the most "westernized" part of that society (Taiwan) is the most stable and prosperous, kills off the fewest of its student protesters, and probably made at least some of the hardware that's letting you read slashdot.
Of course, this supports the "amateur" nature of sustainable music production, and from other posts you are definitely against that
False dichotomy. There's nothing at all stopping amateurs from doing whate
Your concept implies that I should pay AOL for their CDs
No, I'm saying that you should pay what the producer of the product, service, content, entertainment - anything - asks, or go elsewhere for what you want. AOL doesn't want to sell you their install software - they want to sell you their service, and that's why they ask you to pass the CD along to your friends. If the artist says, "I want you to enjoy my music, but the way I'm going to be able to spend my waking hours making it all day long, instead of flipping burgers, and earn a living doing so, is through airplay royalties and CD sales," then you have to either respect that artist's wishes, or admit that you don't respect the artist when you don't abide by their wishes, as it relates to what they spend their time creating.
Not sure how that could be more simple. That's like saying you respect me, but just not enough to keep you from stiffing me on the agreed payment after I've mowed your lawn. It doesn't matter if that's a freakin' theft, infringement, blah-blah analogy or not: the point is that if an artist chooses a certain business model, you're being intellectually dishonest if you say you respect the artist (especially enough to choose them to entertain you), but just not enough to respect them in the one thing that they chiefly ask of their potential audiences (in this example, that they pay for their products).
Out of curiosity, how does your "performance" concept work when it comes to a film that costs millions of dollars to produce? Is the DVD an advertisement, encouraging you to... what, go see the broadway version of the movie? How about: if you don't like that Peter Jackson copyrighted his LOTR movies, that it means you don't like his business model, and so you don't choose him to be your entertainer, and let him recoup his huge expenses from those people that are willing to pay a few dollars for their experience of thousands of people's efforts?
The medium is not an ad, it's a delivery mechanism. What would you call files licensed from iTunes? Are those ads, too? And what about a fine art printmaker who produces, by hand, 250 prints? Are those ads?
Here's an idea: if you don't like what the artist calls their products, admit that you don't like the artist, and turn elsewhere. No doubt some indy film maker that doesn't want to earn anything for his work will soon make a film as fantastic as Jackson's, and not worry about whether anyone pays for it. I can't think of one off the top of my head, but I'm sure you'll let me know who that would be.
and why there are more reasons then that to go buy a DVD or CD
So, if the person who invests huge money in producing that content thinks you're right, and that they'll be better able to pay back their investors if more people get the work without paying for it, then surely they can waive their copyright and say, "Hey! Please feel free to copy this!" But for those that find that their work sells only a few copies before it's torrented all over the place and sales fall way off - why not leave them the choice?
And, for those people so idealogically horrified by artists that want to retain copyright control, surely they don't like those people anyway, right? Why would they want to be entertained by someone for whom they have such disdain? That's the real heart of the hypocrisy, I think. The people that are so sure that free distribution of the creative work is better for everyone (including the people who are trying to earn a living from it)... if those people are making such a good case, then why aren't more artists giving away their work? Some are. The vast majority are not, or do so only under very specific circumstances. Why? Because the people that say it should be free are not very convincing about how the artist will be able to own a decent home or send their children to a nice college (or just buy a very nice new piece of digital recording equipment or $50,000 video editor for that matter) based on free distribution of their work.
Why not watch it in a cinema, thats what I did (regardless of the fact that I already had a copy of it before I saw it in the cinema)
If there were no copyright protection on the film, a cinema chain would be under no obligation to compensate the film maker. Likewise on DVDs. If the artist can't control the way in which they sell the use of their work, they'll never be able to invest what it takes to produce it - especially the big stuff (sticking with the Jackson example).
This still does not require copyright
Right - so long as everyone around the world has the integrity to pay for the work anyway. That won't happen.
Not that I don't think that Microsoft isn't doing this out of self-serving long term planning, but I do agree with the action (perhaps not their guiding principle).
What's wrong with the guiding principle of a company acting in its own interest? MS will have a better future if people are happier when sitting down in front of their products and not getting killed with spam. MS will have lower costs if their own Hotmail, MSN, and other systems aren't choking on spam. If every company, and every person, acted rationally in their own interests, we'd be way, way ahead of the game. And no, I don't think that the spammers are acting rationally in their own interests - they're parasites that are trying to make a buck off of a set of (technical, cultural) vulnerabilities, and it's ultimately a very destructive behavior.
Under current law it is NOT stealing, although the powers that be would love it that you perceive it that way.
This is my all-time favorite distraction comment. You know, argue the semantics of "theft" vs. "infringement" and hope that nobody notices that your purpose is to make everyone comfortable with ripping off artists, no matter what you call it. It's wrong. Period.
I'd love to see the typical P2P-using teenager stand in front of their "favorite" artist and tell them that they love their work, and have all of it, but don't respect them enough to pay what the artist is asking for that work. But the people who rip off those artists know they're abusing the people they say they respect, and they'd never be able to look them in the eye.
What was the last time I payed an artist to do something regardless of copyright? About 5 days ago now (last saterday while watching a live performance)
Boy, I could sure go for the epic presenation of a huge work of literature. I think I'll call up Peter Jackson and see when his ensemble cast will be performing the entire LOTR trilogy at my local playhouse this month. What? That sort of material can't be performed live? Huh. I guess we'll just have to give it up, then. And all of that trash that Pixar creates... pointless, no question!
How did Homer (or the many homeric poets) support themselves before the days of copyright?
That's like asking how he kept his dairy products fresh before we had refrigeration. You're trotting out a guy who died millenia ago to make your point, and not thinking that perhaps he would have been the Peter Jackson of his day, producing even more epic material and depending on royalties to produce even more - for an even wider audience.
I always enjoy being told that we need to "think out of the box" by people (especially anonymous cowards) who basically spend their day trying justify being too cheap to pay artists for their work.
I'm sorry, if you're going to be rational, you're going to have find another forum. Slashdot is reserved for people who don't think about what it actually costs to be a creative artist or to entertain people, and who assume that they'll keep getting Peter Jackson-grade movies even when Peter Jackson isn't allowed to attract financing based on an informed gamble about income after the "performing" of the material. What do these people think? That we should quit having things like his recent LOTR films and go back to strictly live plays? I love the theatre. But I also love films that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. Wow, oh wow, oh wow are people clueless. He'd be better off asking what Homer would do if he had the communications tools we have now, and whether he'd like the idea of a royalties contract now that it's possible.
Gosh... I'm getting a little choked up, here! I rarely run into anyone that actually, well, feels the same way about this. No, strike that. I rarely run into someone Don Quixote-ish enough (like me) to think that saying something about this in the crazy slashdot sanitarium is worth the few moments it takes to type.
The Open Source Crazies either really do think that the merits of OS somehow also apply to, say, the latest Coldplay CD, or don't think that at all, but are trying to use it as cover so they can at least say they don't feel bad about ripping it off. It's just all so transparent, and they're SO missing the point about what will happen if artists who invest months or years on a project lose any prospect of getting paid based on the success/popularity of the work. Thanks for having a clue, and using it.
That has nothing to do with the circularity of your original argument.
Which wasn't the case, and which you haven't demonstrated. I said:
It is a property right, because it protects that which people have created - their property - should they choose to exercise that right.
To use different words: It's referred to as a property right because what it does is defend your rights to your property. You can make use of that right, or not. There's nothing "circular" about any of that - it's an explanation of the term's meaning, and mention of your option to use it, or not.
You can choose not to take advantage of the government's offer to stick its nose into the affairs of those to which you have sold or shown information that you produced.
The government's not "offering" to do that any more than it is any time two people have a disagreement about any contract. If two people enter into a contract, and someone decides to blow off the terms of that contract, then the injured party (to stay legal) can only turn to the courts for relief. The only other alternatives are to say that contracts mean nothing, or that enforcement of them should be left up to private action, which would be nothing but trouble.
You don't get the information age. If your information is wanted, you create far more opportunity for yourself by putting it out in the world freely with your name on it.
OK, so you've created something, and put it out there with no strings attached. Now you have the opportunity to... what? Do that again? Charge for the next thing you create? That's an option, obviously. But I'm responding to a comment that indicates that we're all moving to a new environment in which all things move around for "free." Not just some garage band's first recording, but all information. There is no opportunity to make a living when there's no mechanism for compensation.
For example, a small artist is far better off doing every thing possible to have his music creations distributed freely to make a name for himself than suing the crap out of anyone who coppies hopeing that he gets some kind of million dollar record deal
You're describing a false dichotomy. There's a vast middle ground between working for free and suing people for a living. It's called selling your work in a marketplace that recognizes the value of the creation in question. We have that, still, sort of.
Commoditisation of a market happens when the service of that market becomes more valuable than the item that market is dealing with.
Exactly. And when an artist asks to be paid for her work, but the market is distorted because thousands (or millions) of her "fans" choose not to pay her for the entertainment she's providing, they've indicated that her work has no value. They value it enough to look around for a way to lay hands on the creative work outside the terms that the artist has asked them to respect, but that's it. Of course, the stunning hypocrisy of saying they like the artist while simultaneously giving her the finger is always pretty grim to watch. I like to imagine someone doing that in person: "Gee, I love your music. I have all of your recordings. I really respect your creativity and intellect. Just, um, not enough to pay you what you're asking. By the way, when's your next creative work coming out? I want it. Just not enough to pay you for it."
A perfectly circular argument.
Not at all. Copyright protects your property if you choose to use it. You don't have to use it, of course. If you find that you're serving your purposes better by not protecting your material, then there's nothing stopping you.
as the companies that treat unrestricted copying over the internet like a threat will loose, and those that treat it like an advantage will win.
People who create information for a living do not benefit when they cannot be paid for their work. And if the people who produce professsional quality information (novelists, musicians, film makers, and so on) have to, say, flip burgers because everyone except them get the "advantage" of their work being unpaid for, then we'll have a society where the best brains and talent either go to waste, or are your pet information/entertainment slaves.
When you look at copyrights like a government regulation that controlls how people use information, rather than some kind of "property" right
But why would you look at it that way? Because it bolsters the whole "information wants to be free" pablum that's used to make people feel better about ripping off artists? Copyrights aren't government regulation, because the copyright holder can do whatever they want with it, including waive it entirely. It is a property right, because it protects that which people have created - their property - should they choose to exercise that right.
as information becomes commoditized, that will be even more so
Why would you consider creative work a commodity? Why would you want or expect that to be more so? The only explanation I can think of would be that it makes it easier to excuse taking it without paying its creators what they ask for it. If people actually earned a living with all of the energy they put into coming up with new ways to justify pirating music, they wouldn't feel too cheap to actually pay their supposedly favorite musicians what those musicians say they want for their work.
If some extremely cool 3rd-party controller/widget maker just doesn't want to get into the MS zone, then they can just focus their ultra-cool talents, superior pricing, and fantastic wonderfulness somewhere else. And then no one will want the walled-off fancy ivory tower product, and that will be that.
Or not. But the point is, it's a wildly competitive product space. It they can't attract the right 3rd party stuff at a good price, and assure their users that 3rd party stuff is going to be something other than a rip-off, then they'll lose. Let them, or support them. It's a choice - and the choice is X or not X. S or not. N or not.
If it was my product, I suppose I'd probably also have an interest in not seeing its reputation tainted by someone's experience with a cheesy, ill-behaved, flaky third-party add-on. Because some 10 year old is going to come back from his friend's house talking Dad into buying him a Sony box since the Xbox kept hanging up when they were using the Acme Kick Boxing Motion Sensor Gloves that only cost $10 on eBay.
Er... I'm having a little trouble with that analogy. Obviously you know what you're getting into when you enter a fancy restaurant, just like you know what you're getting into when you enter a Spendy University(tm). I'm guessing that everyone assumes the $1000 on books for a semester will be so lost in the years of student loan payments that no one is going to worry about it. Maybe not. But just like schools, expensive restaurants can be quickly researched online... I haven't gone to an expensive dinner in a long time without a quick trip to epinions or some other venue for a sense of how it will play out. Me != Stingy, Me = Picky.