Sir/Madam, you give these people far too much credit. You should talk to some actual CEO's sometime. In 99% of the cases, they are nothing special at all. At best, they are simply well connected.
That has some value, but "talent" is not something I would call it.
Just the same, I'm not going to let you lock down the internet because you think you deserve money for your mp3's.
You are not being asked to change your business model because it's easy for us to pirate your music, but because you have to or you will fail at monetizing your music. It's just reality. Bitching and moaning about it isn't going to help, and SOPA is definitely not the right thing to do.
If you really understood technology, I would think you knew that. But on the other hand, you did not suggest a solution. To be fair, in your post here, you did not claim any special understanding of ethics and morality:-)
Your description is a nutshell summary of what is wrong with closed source software--especially OS's.
It's not even so much that "you can go in there and change it if you don't like it". It's more along the lines of who the OS and software makers are thinking of when they design it. In closed source, the designers are thinking of themselves, primarily, and the users second. In open source, it's all about the user.
To be fair (if you want to be fair), I do think there's a grey area when user-uploaded content is considered. I don't think it would be fair to expect site administrators to police copyrighted material from their forums and such.
What, exactly, is the problem with showing women's shelters, prisons, or schools? Will bad people not be able to find them without street view? What is the downside, I don't understand.
You really think that simply explaining things clearly works?
As phony as the article sounds, it's still true that convincing people of things is very complex, and little of it is to do with the facts themselves, but in fitting them into the listener's worldview. Which is psychology, and all this cultural mumbo jumbo in the article comes in.
I know it feels that way, and there is some truth to what you are saying, but the fact is that crime rates haven't really changed, like, ever. If anything, it's on a downswing over the last few decades:
Fortunately, it is not your responsibility to make sure that someone else can make a living.:-)
They'll figure it out, eventually. The music industry is doing well enough. The movie folks seem to be doing alright, too. But it's their problem, not ours.
Unless you think we should all be worried about how you make a living, too? (I mean personally I'm a liberal and all and I'm concerned for your welfare, but do you see what I'm saying?)
I do want to acknowledge the relative sanity of your position. A 5 year term would be a massive improvement, no doubt about it, and if push came to shove I'd certainly support it.
However...:-)
You bring up several scenarios involving reasonable copying ideas. For example, my downloading of the horrible Rebecca Black song as a try-before-you-buy. Sure, makes sense. Let's say I like it. And there it is on my hard drive. What, exactly, would I be buying?
In that cases I'd suggest a tip jar model might could work--but that would necessitate free copying as well. But really I feel the whole notion of "buying" media has become obsolete. It seems to me buying access to it is much more reasonable--and I'd cheerfully pay a (small) fee for access to good, high quality copies with no hassle (and no drm).
After all, I regularly pay to go to the movies, because it's an experience you simply can't duplicate at home.
But I kinda feel like the same rules should apply to all forms of media. Maybe I'm wrong about that. And any rationale that depends on "well, it really helps the artists" is fatuous and insincere.
For example, you bring up the idea of sample chapters of books. Sounds reasonable. But there's still the issue of enforcement. If we have an internet where you can enforce only having access to the sample chapters, that couldn't be a free internet, could it?
One of my ultimate arguments: In the end, I have to say I reject the idea that anyone is owed any money for their work. Bear with me.
For example, I developed a video game. I have yet to make a cent from it. I have various problems (like no money to market it so nobody knows about it) that keep it from succeeding. However, I think you would agree that no one owes me jack. Not one cent. I dropped my meager savings into developing it, and at this point that is wasted money (but a year and a half of geeky bliss lol).
This is the sense I mean. Just because someone creates something doesn't mean they are owed anything. It's up to we, the creators, to figure out how to monetize it if we can. And part of running any business is having a passing familiarity with reality and how it works, and today that includes the internet.
Have you seen the Pirate Bay's promo page? Hundreds of indie bands have taken them up on the offer to advertise on their front page, and these bands upload the torrents of their music themselves (as I uploaded my own game, crak0red by myself lol).
I think that in reality, the only ones hurt by piracy at all are only the most successful, who are already doing very well. I mean, if you started an indie band and suddenly got 2 million downloads off the pirate bay, would it be a bad thing for your band?
But again, that doesn't matter when we're talking about ethics. I am glad you grokked my replicator analogy, and of course you're right that the internet cannot copy things that people did not make. But still it does make perfect copies of digital culture, and I just have to come down on the side of the more important morality of allowing that to exist as being more important than any individual's income. In the end, I think it's inevitable it will be embraced this way--it's just that in the meantime I can't see giving the entertainment industry the power to censor the internet to protect their copyright via a SOPA type law as being remotely reasonable--even with a 5 year copyright term. I just don't think that solves the real problem, which to my mind is the vital necessity of a free internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you insane?
Really?
Sir/Madam, you give these people far too much credit. You should talk to some actual CEO's sometime. In 99% of the cases, they are nothing special at all. At best, they are simply well connected.
That has some value, but "talent" is not something I would call it.
Just the same, I'm not going to let you lock down the internet because you think you deserve money for your mp3's.
:-)
You are not being asked to change your business model because it's easy for us to pirate your music, but because you have to or you will fail at monetizing your music. It's just reality. Bitching and moaning about it isn't going to help, and SOPA is definitely not the right thing to do.
If you really understood technology, I would think you knew that. But on the other hand, you did not suggest a solution. To be fair, in your post here, you did not claim any special understanding of ethics and morality
dude...if you could make an exact copy of a car and drive off with it, that would be fine, too.
What do musicians know about morality or ethics or, in particular, technology, that the rest of us don't?
I'm sorry, but most music and other art is crap, and I don't see why they should get special treatment from the internet.
I'm not hostile, just trying to make a point.
Android doesn't have this problem.
Your description is a nutshell summary of what is wrong with closed source software--especially OS's.
It's not even so much that "you can go in there and change it if you don't like it". It's more along the lines of who the OS and software makers are thinking of when they design it. In closed source, the designers are thinking of themselves, primarily, and the users second. In open source, it's all about the user.
To be fair (if you want to be fair), I do think there's a grey area when user-uploaded content is considered. I don't think it would be fair to expect site administrators to police copyrighted material from their forums and such.
The guy is still a fool, of course....
What is unrealistic about a string of bytes having a value of $0?
;-)
Do you have trouble with computer?
What your saying makes sense, but couldn't it be solved best by the forum moderators (owners) insisting on a real name policy?
That way you can have one forum with real names, one with anonymous, pick your poison.
What, exactly, is the problem with showing women's shelters, prisons, or schools? Will bad people not be able to find them without street view? What is the downside, I don't understand.
Maybe he knew he was talking to Slashdot?
I thought he made a lot of sense.
But I agree that's not the way to broach it with the normals, if you can help it.
Culture belongs to all of us.
The idea of any part of it being owned by someone is an artificial construct whose usefulness has *largely* passed.
Mod parent up. An alternative to DNS may need to be in our future.
Well said, indeed.
Now, what are we going to do about it?
That's what the IPCC report is supposed to do.
Have you met people?
You really think that simply explaining things clearly works?
As phony as the article sounds, it's still true that convincing people of things is very complex, and little of it is to do with the facts themselves, but in fitting them into the listener's worldview. Which is psychology, and all this cultural mumbo jumbo in the article comes in.
You don't know what pollution is.
Everything we create is natural, one way or another. Doesn't make it not pollution.
Geez dude seriously? Anyway?
That may be, yet nonetheless the old ways are not going to work any more. The poster you replied to was just offering one alternative.
Am I the only person who can't see the logic in either of these statements?
I know it feels that way, and there is some truth to what you are saying, but the fact is that crime rates haven't really changed, like, ever. If anything, it's on a downswing over the last few decades:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/06/long-term-trend-in-homicide-rates.html
The difference today is we hear more about it, because of the pervasive media.
So cheer up. I'm not saying things are perfect now, but they weren't near as good in the past as you think!
You realize the administration didn't even want the addendum in there that (sort of) makes what you say true?
Our government is out of control. And I'm a liberal.
Fortunately, it is not your responsibility to make sure that someone else can make a living. :-)
They'll figure it out, eventually. The music industry is doing well enough. The movie folks seem to be doing alright, too. But it's their problem, not ours.
Unless you think we should all be worried about how you make a living, too? (I mean personally I'm a liberal and all and I'm concerned for your welfare, but do you see what I'm saying?)
How about them suing/legally extorting money from Android phone makers due to their nebulous "Linux patents"?
They are still a bad actor.
Respect all the same--thank you for engaging seriously.
I do want to acknowledge the relative sanity of your position. A 5 year term would be a massive improvement, no doubt about it, and if push came to shove I'd certainly support it.
:-)
However...
You bring up several scenarios involving reasonable copying ideas. For example, my downloading of the horrible Rebecca Black song as a try-before-you-buy. Sure, makes sense. Let's say I like it. And there it is on my hard drive. What, exactly, would I be buying?
In that cases I'd suggest a tip jar model might could work--but that would necessitate free copying as well. But really I feel the whole notion of "buying" media has become obsolete. It seems to me buying access to it is much more reasonable--and I'd cheerfully pay a (small) fee for access to good, high quality copies with no hassle (and no drm).
After all, I regularly pay to go to the movies, because it's an experience you simply can't duplicate at home.
But I kinda feel like the same rules should apply to all forms of media. Maybe I'm wrong about that. And any rationale that depends on "well, it really helps the artists" is fatuous and insincere.
For example, you bring up the idea of sample chapters of books. Sounds reasonable. But there's still the issue of enforcement. If we have an internet where you can enforce only having access to the sample chapters, that couldn't be a free internet, could it?
One of my ultimate arguments: In the end, I have to say I reject the idea that anyone is owed any money for their work. Bear with me.
For example, I developed a video game. I have yet to make a cent from it. I have various problems (like no money to market it so nobody knows about it) that keep it from succeeding. However, I think you would agree that no one owes me jack. Not one cent. I dropped my meager savings into developing it, and at this point that is wasted money (but a year and a half of geeky bliss lol).
This is the sense I mean. Just because someone creates something doesn't mean they are owed anything. It's up to we, the creators, to figure out how to monetize it if we can. And part of running any business is having a passing familiarity with reality and how it works, and today that includes the internet.
Have you seen the Pirate Bay's promo page? Hundreds of indie bands have taken them up on the offer to advertise on their front page, and these bands upload the torrents of their music themselves (as I uploaded my own game, crak0red by myself lol).
I think that in reality, the only ones hurt by piracy at all are only the most successful, who are already doing very well. I mean, if you started an indie band and suddenly got 2 million downloads off the pirate bay, would it be a bad thing for your band?
But again, that doesn't matter when we're talking about ethics. I am glad you grokked my replicator analogy, and of course you're right that the internet cannot copy things that people did not make. But still it does make perfect copies of digital culture, and I just have to come down on the side of the more important morality of allowing that to exist as being more important than any individual's income. In the end, I think it's inevitable it will be embraced this way--it's just that in the meantime I can't see giving the entertainment industry the power to censor the internet to protect their copyright via a SOPA type law as being remotely reasonable--even with a 5 year copyright term. I just don't think that solves the real problem, which to my mind is the vital necessity of a free internet.
I mean, can you imagine what it would be like?
There is one problem with your point of view--and I think you would agree--which is that supporting pollution of any sort makes no sense.
We should cut back on CO2 pollution just as we should cut back on all other forms of it.
What I fear is that in our anti-agw zeal, we're simply supporting continuing CO2 and all other forms of pollution.
We should try to leave the planet as we found it as much as is compatible with our own welfare, because we depend on it to survive.