okay, well then i guess you are right. thanks for telling me what i am talking about and what i think. you might also try telling your lamp at home it thinks.
let me try to bring you up to speed about this thread since your post is out in left field. nobody on this thread ever said that artists get a fair shake or was defending the RIAA. the question is whether all music should be "uncopyrightable" and in the public domain, such that no money can be made from recorded music, by anyone including the artist.
that being said, when is the last time you heard of someone getting sued or harassed or anything else for making a copy of a music CD that that they purchased for use only in their home? doesn't happen.
yours is a BS argument used by people to justify to themselves that their circumvention of laws is all in a good cause. yes, you're a rebel, fighting against the system alright. in reality, you are converned about saving $15.99. how nobel.
the way you get money to go to the artist is buy purchasing from independent labels. that avenue is open to you, and has been long before mp3s came along. if you hate them SO much, why are you buying their CDs?
can't wait to jump in could you? it's hard to believe you didn't even read the quote you pasted. please, tell me how i implied that people would cease to create because a system is dominated by independent music?
look, i responded to a post that proclaimed that society owned all music, without restrictions. i agree, copyrights should be restricted and they are being abused, but i wouldn't completely remove an artist's legal (constitutional) right to make money from their art.
that too is faulty, because if you copy a CD i bought, *I* am not losing any money over it
not YOU, the artist and the record company. they are most definetely losing money.
right now, they are giving away their music
geeze. they are getting SOMETHING. it was suggested this thread that the music is owned by society. in that case, they get NOTHING. yes, it's an outrage that they do not get a larger % of the profit. however, it's pretty hard to argue that it's in an artist's best (monetary) interest to throw out the entire music copyright system. rally your energy to artists' rights and supporting independent labels in that case.
i do feel that i should own "the copy" that i bought
geeze 2. if all that was going on is legal owners making copies of the music they own, the RIAA wouldn't give a crap. we all know that this is not what it's about. because you live in a world with 6 billion people, you do not get individual attention. no law is going to be forged in your name to protect your right to make and use copies of your CDs. the laws apply to the masses, the masses who are illegally DISTRIBUTING media.
I play a guitar, write my own music and release it under a Creative Commons license. It's crap, and nobody listens to it, but if it was suddenly picked up and made successful in some way, I'd continue to have it freely available alongside CD sales.
that is your choice. why do you think you can make that decision for every other artist? if i am an artist, and there exists a system that allows me to maximize the profit from my art, and i choose to participate in that system, am i free to do that?
it doesn't follow that society collectively owns all art produced because the RIAA is a profiteering body. that is my point anyway.
not everyone who is against the RIAA supports music piracy
agreed.
want to make an exact copy of my car and leave mien intact and not hamper me in any way, feel free
old property rights analogies cannot be applied to such new mediums as this. the reason is that your copying of music takes money away from the people that actually did something to produce it. if i make a copy of your car, i am not reducing your income... unless i am devaluing your car because there is now 100k of them.
it's because the industry is ripping them off far worse than any pirate ever has
so let's see. because the artists are getting a poor deal, you want to give them no deal at all? or was it since they are being screwed it's okay to screw them worse?
people who want to make music will make music
agreed, but they won't make money from it. artists, as members of homo sapiens, will always try to maximize their profit. my only point was that if you asked an artist, they would NOT be in favor of giving all of their music away for free. so if the artists wouldn't support it, and the artists agents don't support it, why exactly would you think that you own the music?
to help you out, the analogy was "societal normalities of the past that don't make sense today." really, if the line of reasoning here is "hey it used to be normal, therefore i can do it today", there are a lot really interesting conclusions to be drawn from following that to the logical end... specious reasoning, at best.
assuming you're a fellow, how about i come over to your house and "share" your wife / partner? for thousands of years women have been the common property of men in western society. point: your opinion of the way western society may have worked in the past, while all so terribly interesting, isn't relevant.
the RIAA is simply enforcing the laws... the laws that are in the interest of the recording companies AND THE ARTISTS. yeah, so it's less in the interest of the artists, but i bet you won't find many successful artists (the ones whose music is being illegally copied) that will disagree with a law that would cut their income to a fraction of what it is today.
if you want to be a rebel, buy independent music, or buy a guitar and write your own music. those are your options. if there were no copyright laws, those would be your only options anyway. go live your life the way you want, nobody is going to stop you.
there's this other company i know of that used their dominance over multiple technology fronts to forge a monopoly. it was MSFT, and the technologies were OS and browser. there's another company that used it's technology dominance in two areas to forge a monopoly: apple. the technologies are online music sales and digitial music players.
blah, blah, blah. apple has every right. they are a business. they are in it to make money. etc. the point is that everyone is quick to jump on MSFT, but apple can do whatever. yes, it's possible to use non-itms music stores with your ipod. yes, it's possible to put itms music onto a different player. also, it was always possible to use non-IE browsers onto a windows box. the platform (ipod-itms) is structured so that it's unattractive to do that. if you have an ipod, you're going to use itms. if you use itms, you'll sure enough own an ipod. and because both of those are virtual monopolies, your choices are limited by this.
if you do not think ipod is a monopoly... consider that ipod has 87% of the market. the next closest is 3.6%. itms has a 70% market share. my guess is that both of these #s has gone up since the release of the proliferation of the shuffle.
how hypocritical is it to talk of open standards and platforms, and then talk up apple for closing ipod and itms off to outside players?
in other news... calling women "cows" has been proven to lower peoples' opinions of you.
it's not your music. you did not participate in the creation of it in any way. if you bought it, you did not purchase the right to distribute it. what are you even talking about?
Re:Actually, Microsoft is now paying for its
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 1
the market share for apple has been steadily decreasing since about 1993. in total numbers, there is more apple hardware out there, but in terms of percentages they continue to lose ground to x86 systems. currently, it stands that about 98% of PCs are x86 based, with 2% for apple.
Re:Actually, Microsoft is now paying for its
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 1
you pointed out the main difference between apple & ms... apple is a hardware company, primarily... ms is a software company.
innovation? maybe, but the market has shown that people care about the bottom line a lot more than they care about the color or size or shape of it's box. apple's proprietary hardware story has almost killed them several times in the past, and may still eventually do so.
i can see there always being a niche market for apple. your one-stop shop for that rebel youth image. but never forget that apple (computers anyway) is niche. maybe you see a lot of apple boxes among your/.er friends, but in the general population they are dwarfed by x86 boxes running windows, and linux.
please read the post next time before replying... i know that's a lot of work, but spend 30 seconds. it will make your responses look not quite so silly.
no, i don't think it's right to tax citizens to pay for corporations' losses.
yes go ahead and -1 for off topic. when i first started reading/., i thought how great it was to find a news site that targeted my interest. since then, my impression of/. has gotten steadily lower. like right wing radio,/. is a place to come to have your existing beliefs confirmed, not for real back and forth dialog. one doesn't even need to read the posts. their content will be obvious.
after reading the article, it's clear to me that to at least some extent/. is a major source of FUD on this issue. the author is correct on one issue at least: according to what i've read from/., i thought the lawsuit was dead and baseless. quite the contrary, it's just getting started. i guess that's my fault for listening to armchair lawyers.
applying a little common sense to the situation, completely ignoring the facts, would SCO even be fighting this is there was no chance in hell as almost every post here states? SCO has lawyers. those lawyers are not stupid. i'd wager they know a little more about this case, and law in general, than the average poster in this thread. they do not want to lose money. SCO does not want to lose money, or at least take a very bad risk on this.
back to/., i post every so often. a few times i've posted what apparently came across as anti-apple, or at least not pro-apple. what happens? -1 flamebait. well i suppose that's true. anything anti-apple, anti linux, pro MS, pro Sun, is flamebait here.
congrats/.'rs, you've formed a perfect community that tells you exactly what you want to hear.
all of the arguments of the like "i only my use MY mp3 player, CDRs, etc for legal purposes, you can't tax me!" are BS. you gave up your "what about me" rights when you chose to live in a world with billions of of other people.
want to apply such logic to other situations? why can't i own an automatic assault rifle? i'm not going to kill anyone. why can't i drive over the speed limit? i am a safe driver. why can't i have a drug habit? i can keep my job and continue to be a productive member of society.
get used to it. blanket rules apply in this world. nobody has time to check out if you individually are doing the right thing.
no, i don't think it's right to tax citizens to pay for corporations' losses. so don't get all up in my face over that. all i am saying is that your "what about me" arguments are never going to hold water with the ppl that make the decisions. those people are looking at the big picture, not at the minority of media consumers that are 100% legit, 100% of the time.
but sure, go ahead any cry in outrage in your/. posts.
a good desktop dist of linux + gnome requires perhaps slightly less than what longhorn is asking for. fedora core, gnome 2.8 on my 750MHz w/ 256 meg ram is almost unusable. and i'd say that the longhorn UI has more bells and whistles than my FC dist. XP did, so i am assuming longhorm does as well.
just to re-iterate, the pkg-get facility works excellent. i used it to take my solaris 9 box to gnome 2.8. it installed everything handling all dependencies.
i have a 650Mhz toshiba laptop, 256MB with fedora core 2 installed. it is barely usable by modern standards. it is almost out of memory with firefox started. i don't know if this is because of the window system, or because the kernel is large therefore not leaving enough room for the window system.
i am not saying this is any worse than any other OS, but for desktop use, such a system doesn't cut it.
you never had an analogy to begin with, sorry. it's very different. we're talking about monetary loss to corporation as a result of unquestionably illegal activity. that has no relation to a new, legal product, like a refrigerator, that makes another good or service obsolete.
you can argue about whether it should be illegal. fine. but that's a different discussion. as it stand today, it's illegal.
how are you lumped into that demo? specifically, you are not in the 12-19 year old MTV watcher video game playing demo (or whatever). that's okay, they will advertise to you in another way, i am sure. just because they are doing a spot on MTV doesn't mean that they view that as their only demographic.
the fact that MS et. al. spends so much $$$ advertising console / games makes it a pretty sure bet that they do their research about target audiences. it strikes me as a little naive to second guess how they are spending their advertising $.
Slashdot Mirror
okay, well then i guess you are right. thanks for telling me what i am talking about and what i think. you might also try telling your lamp at home it thinks.
let me try to bring you up to speed about this thread since your post is out in left field. nobody on this thread ever said that artists get a fair shake or was defending the RIAA. the question is whether all music should be "uncopyrightable" and in the public domain, such that no money can be made from recorded music, by anyone including the artist.
that being said, when is the last time you heard of someone getting sued or harassed or anything else for making a copy of a music CD that that they purchased for use only in their home? doesn't happen.
yours is a BS argument used by people to justify to themselves that their circumvention of laws is all in a good cause. yes, you're a rebel, fighting against the system alright. in reality, you are converned about saving $15.99. how nobel.
the way you get money to go to the artist is buy purchasing from independent labels. that avenue is open to you, and has been long before mp3s came along. if you hate them SO much, why are you buying their CDs?
dude.
look, i responded to a post that proclaimed that society owned all music, without restrictions. i agree, copyrights should be restricted and they are being abused, but i wouldn't completely remove an artist's legal (constitutional) right to make money from their art.
not YOU, the artist and the record company. they are most definetely losing money.
right now, they are giving away their music
geeze. they are getting SOMETHING. it was suggested this thread that the music is owned by society. in that case, they get NOTHING. yes, it's an outrage that they do not get a larger % of the profit. however, it's pretty hard to argue that it's in an artist's best (monetary) interest to throw out the entire music copyright system. rally your energy to artists' rights and supporting independent labels in that case.
i do feel that i should own "the copy" that i bought
geeze 2. if all that was going on is legal owners making copies of the music they own, the RIAA wouldn't give a crap. we all know that this is not what it's about. because you live in a world with 6 billion people, you do not get individual attention. no law is going to be forged in your name to protect your right to make and use copies of your CDs. the laws apply to the masses, the masses who are illegally DISTRIBUTING media.
that is your choice. why do you think you can make that decision for every other artist? if i am an artist, and there exists a system that allows me to maximize the profit from my art, and i choose to participate in that system, am i free to do that?
it doesn't follow that society collectively owns all art produced because the RIAA is a profiteering body. that is my point anyway.
agreed.
want to make an exact copy of my car and leave mien intact and not hamper me in any way, feel free
old property rights analogies cannot be applied to such new mediums as this. the reason is that your copying of music takes money away from the people that actually did something to produce it. if i make a copy of your car, i am not reducing your income ... unless i am devaluing your car because there is now 100k of them.
it's because the industry is ripping them off far worse than any pirate ever has
so let's see. because the artists are getting a poor deal, you want to give them no deal at all? or was it since they are being screwed it's okay to screw them worse?
people who want to make music will make music
agreed, but they won't make money from it. artists, as members of homo sapiens, will always try to maximize their profit. my only point was that if you asked an artist, they would NOT be in favor of giving all of their music away for free. so if the artists wouldn't support it, and the artists agents don't support it, why exactly would you think that you own the music?
to help you out, the analogy was "societal normalities of the past that don't make sense today." really, if the line of reasoning here is "hey it used to be normal, therefore i can do it today", there are a lot really interesting conclusions to be drawn from following that to the logical end ... specious reasoning, at best.
the RIAA is simply enforcing the laws ... the laws that are in the interest of the recording companies AND THE ARTISTS. yeah, so it's less in the interest of the artists, but i bet you won't find many successful artists (the ones whose music is being illegally copied) that will disagree with a law that would cut their income to a fraction of what it is today.
if you want to be a rebel, buy independent music, or buy a guitar and write your own music. those are your options. if there were no copyright laws, those would be your only options anyway. go live your life the way you want, nobody is going to stop you.
blah, blah, blah. apple has every right. they are a business. they are in it to make money. etc. the point is that everyone is quick to jump on MSFT, but apple can do whatever. yes, it's possible to use non-itms music stores with your ipod. yes, it's possible to put itms music onto a different player. also, it was always possible to use non-IE browsers onto a windows box. the platform (ipod-itms) is structured so that it's unattractive to do that. if you have an ipod, you're going to use itms. if you use itms, you'll sure enough own an ipod. and because both of those are virtual monopolies, your choices are limited by this.
if you do not think ipod is a monopoly ... consider that ipod has 87% of the market. the next closest is 3.6%. itms has a 70% market share. my guess is that both of these #s has gone up since the release of the proliferation of the shuffle.
how hypocritical is it to talk of open standards and platforms, and then talk up apple for closing ipod and itms off to outside players?
it's not your music. you did not participate in the creation of it in any way. if you bought it, you did not purchase the right to distribute it. what are you even talking about?
the market share for apple has been steadily decreasing since about 1993. in total numbers, there is more apple hardware out there, but in terms of percentages they continue to lose ground to x86 systems. currently, it stands that about 98% of PCs are x86 based, with 2% for apple.
obviously, the judge didn't think so. obviously.
as previously reported on slashdot, SCO's case does not hinge on discovery of copied source code.
innovation? maybe, but the market has shown that people care about the bottom line a lot more than they care about the color or size or shape of it's box. apple's proprietary hardware story has almost killed them several times in the past, and may still eventually do so.
i can see there always being a niche market for apple. your one-stop shop for that rebel youth image. but never forget that apple (computers anyway) is niche. maybe you see a lot of apple boxes among your /.er friends, but in the general population they are dwarfed by x86 boxes running windows, and linux.
no, i don't think it's right to tax citizens to pay for corporations' losses.
after reading the article, it's clear to me that to at least some extent /. is a major source of FUD on this issue. the author is correct on one issue at least: according to what i've read from /., i thought the lawsuit was dead and baseless. quite the contrary, it's just getting started. i guess that's my fault for listening to armchair lawyers.
applying a little common sense to the situation, completely ignoring the facts, would SCO even be fighting this is there was no chance in hell as almost every post here states? SCO has lawyers. those lawyers are not stupid. i'd wager they know a little more about this case, and law in general, than the average poster in this thread. they do not want to lose money. SCO does not want to lose money, or at least take a very bad risk on this.
back to /., i post every so often. a few times i've posted what apparently came across as anti-apple, or at least not pro-apple. what happens? -1 flamebait. well i suppose that's true. anything anti-apple, anti linux, pro MS, pro Sun, is flamebait here.
congrats /.'rs, you've formed a perfect community that tells you exactly what you want to hear.
want to apply such logic to other situations? why can't i own an automatic assault rifle? i'm not going to kill anyone. why can't i drive over the speed limit? i am a safe driver. why can't i have a drug habit? i can keep my job and continue to be a productive member of society.
get used to it. blanket rules apply in this world. nobody has time to check out if you individually are doing the right thing.
no, i don't think it's right to tax citizens to pay for corporations' losses. so don't get all up in my face over that. all i am saying is that your "what about me" arguments are never going to hold water with the ppl that make the decisions. those people are looking at the big picture, not at the minority of media consumers that are 100% legit, 100% of the time.
but sure, go ahead any cry in outrage in your /. posts.
a good desktop dist of linux + gnome requires perhaps slightly less than what longhorn is asking for. fedora core, gnome 2.8 on my 750MHz w/ 256 meg ram is almost unusable. and i'd say that the longhorn UI has more bells and whistles than my FC dist. XP did, so i am assuming longhorm does as well.
just to re-iterate, the pkg-get facility works excellent. i used it to take my solaris 9 box to gnome 2.8. it installed everything handling all dependencies.
please provide references for this data, or be ignored.
if you pay to get into a movie, do you have the right to bootleg it? a concert?
you may indeed have the right, but it has nothing to do with you paying tuition.
i am not saying this is any worse than any other OS, but for desktop use, such a system doesn't cut it.
no, i did not re-compile the kernel.
you never had an analogy to begin with, sorry. it's very different. we're talking about monetary loss to corporation as a result of unquestionably illegal activity. that has no relation to a new, legal product, like a refrigerator, that makes another good or service obsolete.
you can argue about whether it should be illegal. fine. but that's a different discussion. as it stand today, it's illegal.
how are you lumped into that demo? specifically, you are not in the 12-19 year old MTV watcher video game playing demo (or whatever). that's okay, they will advertise to you in another way, i am sure. just because they are doing a spot on MTV doesn't mean that they view that as their only demographic.
the fact that MS et. al. spends so much $$$ advertising console / games makes it a pretty sure bet that they do their research about target audiences. it strikes me as a little naive to second guess how they are spending their advertising $.