This is the most poorly worded story I've read on slashdot in a long time.
This bill does nothing more than reduce restrictions on voluntary contracts between consenting parties.
It boggles my mind that an obviously liberal-biased story summary like this will automatically get hordes and hordes of people to scream about how this will destroy consumer rights or shows that government is in the pocket of big business.
Why will the laws of capitalism, governing the idea that the suppliers that give the best offer (i.e. allow their customers to have sales) will have the best business, cease to function if this law is removed?
I think its very clear that DRM-free music makes much more sense than any sort of copy protection, for the consumers, the corporations selling the music and producing players, and the corporations producing the music themselves. This does not mean, however, that such a system should be mandated. Copyright owners should be able to distribute their own property however they see fit.
What if you are an independent writer selling and distributing your books online. Should any government be able to tell you how you distribute it? What if you create an interface that checks the users credentials whenever he accesses the material, should the government make this illegal?
If DRM is such a huge problem, and for most people it is at least marginally annoying, then the record labels that provide music DRM free will have an advantage over those that don't. This will pressure record labels to remove protection on the music they sell. I fail to understand the EU's need to regulate as much as possible, this is CLEARLY a problem the free market can handle. Sure outlawing DRM might help the consumer in the short run, but this sort of government coercion comes at the cost of economic freedom.
First of all, given the amount of sampling that happens with most hip-hop records these days, chances are this is just a mistake they made when reviewing the material used to produce the song. The whole sub-genre of rap mixtapes is essentially one humongous copyright infringement. I'm glad that Slashdot managed to dismiss an entire genre of music because of such an event.
I will never quite understand Slashdot's aversion to the legal system as a whole, where in the world do you NOT have an advantage with more money? Posting it to Youtube just lets more people know about it, why don't the original producers of the tune just shut up and use the branch of American government specifically designed for this type of thing, like every other legitimate business in the world?
billcopc, That comment is absolutely wrong on so many levels.
First of all, very basic economics explains that exchange of wealth is not a zero sum game, it can't possibly be. Remember, currency and commodities are not the only form of wealth, far from it. People would never go to stores and buy products if doing so was simply a transfer of wealth from them to the firm selling the product, it would not be beneficial for them if they simply transferred their wealth away. By going to a car dealership and buying a car, you are creating wealth. Obviously owning a car is worth more to you than the sum of money required to purchase the car, otherwise it would not make sense to buy it. And obviously the money the dealership obtains from selling the car is worth more to it than having the car in its possession. Thus, both parties benefit and wealth is created. Your argument that wealth is simply shifted was disproved by Adam Smith 221 years ago, hence the end of mercantilism.
Second, your claim that when you have more money than you can spend you are creating economic problems is incredibly naive and frankly an insult to the word 'economic'. I also fail to understand why you think any society could function in the long term without people who had more money than they could spend. When people have excess wealth, they invest it (the rational ones at least), thus providing a service to society by putting money where it can be most useful. If Goldman Sachs invests a million dollars in a startup company, they are benefiting the company by giving it the financial ability to function, benefiting themselves by gaining a return on equity, and benefiting by allocating these funds to the firms that it believes will be most useful to consumers.
Third, you obviously have difficulty understanding the concept of compensation. If everyone received the same wage for an hours work, what incentive would there be to work harder, produce a better product, or improve yourself to expand the type of work you do? Executives like Lloyd Blankfein are in extremely high demand. Someone like that has years of higher education, dozens of years of industry experience, and a track record of reliability. If Goldman Sachs feels they should pay him $50 million, then why not? They happen to be the ones to best judge Blankfein's performance, and run the risk of losing him to a competing firm if they fail to compensate him well. This man is the figurehead of an organization that employs 25,000 people, and is performing well in this position, why should he not be payed well? This sort of compensation is known as a tournament system. Those at the very top receive extremely good pay relative to the rest, and it serves as motivation and incentive.
Fourth, I'm not quite sure why you thought it was a good idea to end your comment with a tirade about the doom of mankind, but sure, I will address it anyway. People like you have existed from essentially the beginning of human thought, and apparently we are still around to argue about it, so good luck with that opinion. Humanity is at its core, fairly rational, and I see it as naive to doubt that the confluence of market forces and human ingenuity will fail to prolong our existence.
I'm not sure why Java GUI's being behind the curve and difficult to work with is news. Anyone who has actually used the word 'Gridbag' knows that Java GUI development is a process somewhat akin to Chinese water torture.
I will never understand Slashdot's amazing ability to take a relatively simple situation and someone manage to direct rage at both a corporate body (Sony) and common and easily understood phenomenon (scalping).
Basic economics will tell you that this informal method of distribution is the result Sony pricing its consoles severely below the market value, thus generating a shortage. It obviously does this to drum up media attention by completely selling out its product, and you can find similar situations wherever a firm is selling a limited resource below its true market value. Though you may not like it, this is a completely valid and legal strategy from Sony, and used by many other companies. Because of the inefficiencies created by this artificial shortage, people will be forced to pay much higher implicit costs for the console, time spent standing in line. The time of the homeless and very poor is worth relatively little, so it makes sense that they will be payed by others whose time is worth much more to stand in line. These middlemen will then be able to sell the product at its market value. Ultimately this is an efficient system, because the middlemen are able to sell the consoles to those who value them the most (those who will pay the most). The people standing in line benefit, they get paid, the scalpers benefit, they turn a profit, the end users benefit, they get their console without standing in line, and Sony benefits, it gets the media attention it wants. I'm sorry that some people got shoved while standing in line?
In the long run, I think that you may see some console manufacturers attempting to capture the difference between corporate pricing strategy and actual market value, rather than using their low price to drive media coverage. Imagine Sony auctioning off consoles at the distributor level or even the consumer level, so that people don't waste time waiting in line, and those willing to pay the most can get the consoles directly from Sony. Another way of capturing the huge consumer demand is for Sony to attempt to match the market value of the Sony with its console prices. This situation of long lines and scalping would not exist if Sony started with prices around $1,500 (search ebay for PS3s if you think that is excessive), and lowered this price $50 every week until its in the $600-$700 range. Of course they wouldn't get the same sensational sell-out stories, but ultimately I think that console quality usually wins out over hype.
I was in a similar situation a few years ago, and here is my advice. Get yourself an unpaid position with a well established company doing whatever small programming projects they don't have anyone else working on. Call around to the largest employers in your area and see if someone is up for managing an unpaid intern, or see if anyone you or your parents know works at a software company near you. You will be hard-pressed to find a paid position before college, but believe me, having a legitimate internship at this stage in your life will definitely pay off.
In high school I took an unpaid position at a defense contractor in my area, doing programming in Coldfusion for an internal communications form that my manager just didn't have time to finish. Although it made my schedule pretty hectic, it definitely made finding a good job in college about ten times easier. A lot of employers are only interested in interns from their third or fourth year in college, but if you are able to tell them that you worked at x company who's name they recognize doing a programming project, they will listen to you and take you seriously.
Realistically Jon Stewart is more biased than Fox News. Stewart has essentially stopped trying to get laughs and now just tries for his narrow-minded audience's appluase. No, I'm not a fan of the administration, but it is now just annoying how Jon Stewart consistently says the same things about them again and again. A perfect example of the direction of TDS during the past year is the moment of zen, at the end of the show. This used to be some bizarre clip about a recent event, meant to evoke laughs. Lately it has just been used as a platform to make a point. Over the past few months the moment of zen has often been a newsclip from 3 or 4 years ago showing how the administration was wrong about something, or how they embarassed themselves in some way. There is a difference between humorous satire and consistent open criticism.
Its not just how Stewart talks about Bush and other Republicans, Stewart also blatantly makes his opinion clear on partisan issues. Recently when congress voted not to raise the minimun wage Stewart sarcastically spouted, "the poor in this country have had it easy for way too long." Apparently Stewart no longer cares about balancing his show for the opinions of his more conservative viewers. A year ago I would have agreed with this article, now I no longer watch TDS.
I fail to understand why everyone against U.S. corporations obeying local laws in order to do business in China takes himself seriously. Get off your high horse and think about the situation before you cry wolf and drop yet another incredibly sarcastic comment about how profits relate to a business' sense of moral responsibility. Stop acting like several U.S. corporations refusing to operate in China based on human rights violations will cause serious change. Furthermore, learn a little bit about basic economics.
Think hard about this: You are a Chinese citizen, you understand that the government is surpressing freedom of speech, and you understand that U.S. corporations enabling you to access the internet (albiet censored) are cooperating with the government. As a consumer, do you want those corporations to continue operating inside the country, or do you want them to pull out of the country completely, depriving you of access to the internet outside of your country? Of course you want the corporations to continue operating, so that you will continue to have access to an extremely useful service. Maybe you've even read some Milton Friedman and understand that economic access to a country is the first step in serious political change. But maybe you, as a Chinese citizen haven't. Wow, you would be just like the people commenting on this story.
It is impossible to argue that Google and Yahoo should not obey local laws and stop operations in China, yet the U.S. should continue importing billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods. Some of you people may even hold the view that U.S. corporations should completely detach themselves from China. Either by their own action, or through U.S. legislation blockading China, you may think that no economic activity should occur with China until serious political change occurs. Congradulations, you lack a basic understanding of modern globalization and are pursueing an isolationist trade policy. Its a good thing you aren't the president, because you propose to seriously hurt both the U.S. and Chinese economies, making life harder for those citizens you are attempting to help. And just look how policies like that turned out in Cuba, good job critically thinking about China and comparing it to other nations.
I don't think there is any arguement that giving Chinese citizens limited access to the internet will promote change. I guess some of you think that the 'moral cost' is too high. You are wrong, and there is no way around it. The world does not come in black and white, and you need to deal with that fact. Change will come in China, and U.S. firms have a chance to both accelerate it and reap the economic rewards when it does. At what level of legal difference from the United States do you draw the line and halt economic activity? It does not really matter in the end, because regardless of how many times you post on your blog, comment in Slashdot, or feebly argue with anyone about it, you are wrong, and U.S. tech firms will continue to operate in China. Just sleep with the knowledge that you attempted to slow the arrival of free speech to China, something you seem to care so much about, but failed, because you don't understand the relationship between economic and political freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the most poorly worded story I've read on slashdot in a long time.
This bill does nothing more than reduce restrictions on voluntary contracts between consenting parties.
It boggles my mind that an obviously liberal-biased story summary like this will automatically get hordes and hordes of people to scream about how this will destroy consumer rights or shows that government is in the pocket of big business.
Why will the laws of capitalism, governing the idea that the suppliers that give the best offer (i.e. allow their customers to have sales) will have the best business, cease to function if this law is removed?
I think its very clear that DRM-free music makes much more sense than any sort of copy protection, for the consumers, the corporations selling the music and producing players, and the corporations producing the music themselves. This does not mean, however, that such a system should be mandated. Copyright owners should be able to distribute their own property however they see fit.
What if you are an independent writer selling and distributing your books online. Should any government be able to tell you how you distribute it? What if you create an interface that checks the users credentials whenever he accesses the material, should the government make this illegal?
If DRM is such a huge problem, and for most people it is at least marginally annoying, then the record labels that provide music DRM free will have an advantage over those that don't. This will pressure record labels to remove protection on the music they sell. I fail to understand the EU's need to regulate as much as possible, this is CLEARLY a problem the free market can handle. Sure outlawing DRM might help the consumer in the short run, but this sort of government coercion comes at the cost of economic freedom.
First of all, given the amount of sampling that happens with most hip-hop records these days, chances are this is just a mistake they made when reviewing the material used to produce the song. The whole sub-genre of rap mixtapes is essentially one humongous copyright infringement. I'm glad that Slashdot managed to dismiss an entire genre of music because of such an event.
I will never quite understand Slashdot's aversion to the legal system as a whole, where in the world do you NOT have an advantage with more money? Posting it to Youtube just lets more people know about it, why don't the original producers of the tune just shut up and use the branch of American government specifically designed for this type of thing, like every other legitimate business in the world?
Pllleeeassseee mod me down
billcopc, That comment is absolutely wrong on so many levels.
First of all, very basic economics explains that exchange of wealth is not a zero sum game, it can't possibly be. Remember, currency and commodities are not the only form of wealth, far from it. People would never go to stores and buy products if doing so was simply a transfer of wealth from them to the firm selling the product, it would not be beneficial for them if they simply transferred their wealth away. By going to a car dealership and buying a car, you are creating wealth. Obviously owning a car is worth more to you than the sum of money required to purchase the car, otherwise it would not make sense to buy it. And obviously the money the dealership obtains from selling the car is worth more to it than having the car in its possession. Thus, both parties benefit and wealth is created. Your argument that wealth is simply shifted was disproved by Adam Smith 221 years ago, hence the end of mercantilism.
Second, your claim that when you have more money than you can spend you are creating economic problems is incredibly naive and frankly an insult to the word 'economic'. I also fail to understand why you think any society could function in the long term without people who had more money than they could spend. When people have excess wealth, they invest it (the rational ones at least), thus providing a service to society by putting money where it can be most useful. If Goldman Sachs invests a million dollars in a startup company, they are benefiting the company by giving it the financial ability to function, benefiting themselves by gaining a return on equity, and benefiting by allocating these funds to the firms that it believes will be most useful to consumers.
Third, you obviously have difficulty understanding the concept of compensation. If everyone received the same wage for an hours work, what incentive would there be to work harder, produce a better product, or improve yourself to expand the type of work you do? Executives like Lloyd Blankfein are in extremely high demand. Someone like that has years of higher education, dozens of years of industry experience, and a track record of reliability. If Goldman Sachs feels they should pay him $50 million, then why not? They happen to be the ones to best judge Blankfein's performance, and run the risk of losing him to a competing firm if they fail to compensate him well. This man is the figurehead of an organization that employs 25,000 people, and is performing well in this position, why should he not be payed well? This sort of compensation is known as a tournament system. Those at the very top receive extremely good pay relative to the rest, and it serves as motivation and incentive.
Fourth, I'm not quite sure why you thought it was a good idea to end your comment with a tirade about the doom of mankind, but sure, I will address it anyway. People like you have existed from essentially the beginning of human thought, and apparently we are still around to argue about it, so good luck with that opinion. Humanity is at its core, fairly rational, and I see it as naive to doubt that the confluence of market forces and human ingenuity will fail to prolong our existence.
Hey, you're right, my time is 100% worthless.
Shoot! I guess all those teachers and professors tricked us into paying them for knowledge, because they can 'share it at no cost' to themselves.
Figure out the difference between price and cost before you even consider responding...
I vote we begin our 'economy of sharing' with the keynote speaker's car.
I'm not sure why Java GUI's being behind the curve and difficult to work with is news. Anyone who has actually used the word 'Gridbag' knows that Java GUI development is a process somewhat akin to Chinese water torture.
I will never understand Slashdot's amazing ability to take a relatively simple situation and someone manage to direct rage at both a corporate body (Sony) and common and easily understood phenomenon (scalping).
Basic economics will tell you that this informal method of distribution is the result Sony pricing its consoles severely below the market value, thus generating a shortage. It obviously does this to drum up media attention by completely selling out its product, and you can find similar situations wherever a firm is selling a limited resource below its true market value. Though you may not like it, this is a completely valid and legal strategy from Sony, and used by many other companies. Because of the inefficiencies created by this artificial shortage, people will be forced to pay much higher implicit costs for the console, time spent standing in line. The time of the homeless and very poor is worth relatively little, so it makes sense that they will be payed by others whose time is worth much more to stand in line. These middlemen will then be able to sell the product at its market value. Ultimately this is an efficient system, because the middlemen are able to sell the consoles to those who value them the most (those who will pay the most). The people standing in line benefit, they get paid, the scalpers benefit, they turn a profit, the end users benefit, they get their console without standing in line, and Sony benefits, it gets the media attention it wants. I'm sorry that some people got shoved while standing in line?
In the long run, I think that you may see some console manufacturers attempting to capture the difference between corporate pricing strategy and actual market value, rather than using their low price to drive media coverage. Imagine Sony auctioning off consoles at the distributor level or even the consumer level, so that people don't waste time waiting in line, and those willing to pay the most can get the consoles directly from Sony. Another way of capturing the huge consumer demand is for Sony to attempt to match the market value of the Sony with its console prices. This situation of long lines and scalping would not exist if Sony started with prices around $1,500 (search ebay for PS3s if you think that is excessive), and lowered this price $50 every week until its in the $600-$700 range. Of course they wouldn't get the same sensational sell-out stories, but ultimately I think that console quality usually wins out over hype.
I was in a similar situation a few years ago, and here is my advice. Get yourself an unpaid position with a well established company doing whatever small programming projects they don't have anyone else working on. Call around to the largest employers in your area and see if someone is up for managing an unpaid intern, or see if anyone you or your parents know works at a software company near you. You will be hard-pressed to find a paid position before college, but believe me, having a legitimate internship at this stage in your life will definitely pay off. In high school I took an unpaid position at a defense contractor in my area, doing programming in Coldfusion for an internal communications form that my manager just didn't have time to finish. Although it made my schedule pretty hectic, it definitely made finding a good job in college about ten times easier. A lot of employers are only interested in interns from their third or fourth year in college, but if you are able to tell them that you worked at x company who's name they recognize doing a programming project, they will listen to you and take you seriously.
Realistically Jon Stewart is more biased than Fox News. Stewart has essentially stopped trying to get laughs and now just tries for his narrow-minded audience's appluase. No, I'm not a fan of the administration, but it is now just annoying how Jon Stewart consistently says the same things about them again and again. A perfect example of the direction of TDS during the past year is the moment of zen, at the end of the show. This used to be some bizarre clip about a recent event, meant to evoke laughs. Lately it has just been used as a platform to make a point. Over the past few months the moment of zen has often been a newsclip from 3 or 4 years ago showing how the administration was wrong about something, or how they embarassed themselves in some way. There is a difference between humorous satire and consistent open criticism. Its not just how Stewart talks about Bush and other Republicans, Stewart also blatantly makes his opinion clear on partisan issues. Recently when congress voted not to raise the minimun wage Stewart sarcastically spouted, "the poor in this country have had it easy for way too long." Apparently Stewart no longer cares about balancing his show for the opinions of his more conservative viewers. A year ago I would have agreed with this article, now I no longer watch TDS.
I fail to understand why everyone against U.S. corporations obeying local laws in order to do business in China takes himself seriously. Get off your high horse and think about the situation before you cry wolf and drop yet another incredibly sarcastic comment about how profits relate to a business' sense of moral responsibility. Stop acting like several U.S. corporations refusing to operate in China based on human rights violations will cause serious change. Furthermore, learn a little bit about basic economics.
Think hard about this: You are a Chinese citizen, you understand that the government is surpressing freedom of speech, and you understand that U.S. corporations enabling you to access the internet (albiet censored) are cooperating with the government. As a consumer, do you want those corporations to continue operating inside the country, or do you want them to pull out of the country completely, depriving you of access to the internet outside of your country? Of course you want the corporations to continue operating, so that you will continue to have access to an extremely useful service. Maybe you've even read some Milton Friedman and understand that economic access to a country is the first step in serious political change. But maybe you, as a Chinese citizen haven't. Wow, you would be just like the people commenting on this story.
It is impossible to argue that Google and Yahoo should not obey local laws and stop operations in China, yet the U.S. should continue importing billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods. Some of you people may even hold the view that U.S. corporations should completely detach themselves from China. Either by their own action, or through U.S. legislation blockading China, you may think that no economic activity should occur with China until serious political change occurs. Congradulations, you lack a basic understanding of modern globalization and are pursueing an isolationist trade policy. Its a good thing you aren't the president, because you propose to seriously hurt both the U.S. and Chinese economies, making life harder for those citizens you are attempting to help. And just look how policies like that turned out in Cuba, good job critically thinking about China and comparing it to other nations.
I don't think there is any arguement that giving Chinese citizens limited access to the internet will promote change. I guess some of you think that the 'moral cost' is too high. You are wrong, and there is no way around it. The world does not come in black and white, and you need to deal with that fact. Change will come in China, and U.S. firms have a chance to both accelerate it and reap the economic rewards when it does. At what level of legal difference from the United States do you draw the line and halt economic activity? It does not really matter in the end, because regardless of how many times you post on your blog, comment in Slashdot, or feebly argue with anyone about it, you are wrong, and U.S. tech firms will continue to operate in China. Just sleep with the knowledge that you attempted to slow the arrival of free speech to China, something you seem to care so much about, but failed, because you don't understand the relationship between economic and political freedom.