You have an amusing and naive idea of human nature.
So basically those who create original products (music, films, books, whatever) have to first go around looking for sponsors, before they create anything. How do you think that's going to go?
Originator: Please give me money and I will write a song. Prospective Sponsor: Sounds good, how's it go? Originator: Can't tell you, I haven't written it yet. I'll write it once I get enough sponsors. Prospective Sponsor: Yeah, right. So I'm paying money up front for something I've not heard yet, and may not even get written? Originator: Uh huh. Prospective Sponsor:: I'm sorry, you seem to be confusing me with a speculative investor. We got rid of those along with copyright and other outmoded business models with the great filesharing revolution. Originator: OK. Here's one I've already written. Please sponsor me. Prospective Sponsor: Hmm, not bad. But now you're expecting me to pay for something I already have for free. Have you really thought this through? Originator: But if you pay me I'll write more. Prospective Sponsor: Yeah, tell you what. How about someone else pays you for something they've not heard yet, then I pick it up for free off Pirate Bay later on. That sounds a whole lot less risk to me. Originator: Come on! It's only fair! Prospective Sponsor: Fair?! Hahahahahahahaha! Originator: Damn, maybe this is why we used to have laws for this kind of thing.
The point is that copyright, as with all laws, is a artificial social construct. Like all artificial social constructs, it was created for a reason. That reason hasn't gone away just because circumventing the construct has become so much easier.
In your willingness to wallow in negativity you seem to be omitting the vast, and more probable, range of opportunity between the two extremes of "all these motion controllers fail horribly" and "one vendor's system "wins""
Clearly this controller puts the PS3 in competition against the Wii in terms of motion control. Nintendo will undoubtedly respond with a higher specced Wii. Innovation. Competition. Everyone gets better hardware. Everyone wins.
some people disagree with the obvious majority opinion, as you probably know, but I think they're mostly trolling
So "disagree with the obvious majority opinion" is "mostly tolling"? I think that's a fair indication of compulsory group-think, and an even more worrying opinion than the OP. Do you mod according to this?
I hate the RIAA as much as anyone else on this forum,
I hadn't realised that the group think had become compulsory. Good job too. Now we can all post happy in the knowledge that no-one will question what we say. Bring on the hours of stimulating agreement.
In my opinion, one of the biggest hurdles keeping Linux our of the domestic desktop market is the developers apparently can't put themselves in the shoes of the average user. In my personal experience they tend to hold the end user in contempt, but I realize that this is a fairly small sample of the community...
Exactly, although I wouldn't say most hold the end user in contempt. They simply don't care what the end user thinks. The problem is that too much coding and design gets done by developers whose sole motivation is to gain the respect of their peers. The only people whose opinion they care about, and can satisfactorily verify their status as genius, are other developers. So we get developers writing for the benefit of other developers. The needs and opinions of end-users are of only passing interest.
That is also why documentation distributed with Linux applications is generally appalling. I couldn't possibly exaggerate this. The average quality of documentation on Linux is staggeringly bad. It is scant and inevitably aimed at users who have a level of expertise comfortably above average. Novice users are not welcome. There really is no point to crowing about the open source and free status of Linux software, and rejoicing at the many options open to the linux user, when they are stumped by the very first steps in using it.
Can some one with a clue please fix the headline on this article? UK is not the same as England. English legislation and English databases do not apply to the whole of the UK.
And you honestly believe that would ever happen? They have just enough SEK to gain before the law firm notices, gets very annoyed with their bank for colluding with a random bunch of nobodies in an obvious attempt to rip them off, and closes the account.
End result; perhaps 1000 SEK, one lost profitable customer and a probable law suit into the bargain. Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
Money that random people on the internet choose to pay the law firm has nothing to do with paying the fine. They are under no obligation to accept money from random people, or in anyway consider it payment of the fine.
And they will not go into a minus. It isn't going to happen. Banks in general do not chose to let themselves become stooges in schemes designed to annoy their customers. Particularly successful law firms.
Just how many transaction do you think they'll allow to occur before the law firm, or more likely their bank, either closes the account to incoming cash, or more likely simply bounces all amounts under a certain figure? The bank is the one who would levvy this alleged 2 SEK fee, yet they have absolutely nothing to gain from playing along with this dumb game.
Just how stupid do you think the law firm and their bank is?
Well, with that kind of authoritative inside knowledge, what could possibly go wrong?
Anyone who imagines this is a way to bankrupt a company, as opposed to just giving them money, is as dumb as this idea is. And any defendant who thinks that attempting to bankrupt the opposing party's law firm is a good response to losing their case... well, dumb doesn't go halfway far enough.
This lacks the kind of hysteria we need. If this was really serious they'd be saying computers will emit smoke and sparks will come out of keyboards. And freezing should only happen after your computer has had time to squawk "Error! Error!" in a robotic voice.
Bull. I work at the second-largest newspaper in Alaska and pick wire stories based on what people are interested in and what folks need to stay informed.
And who picks what stories get on the wire?
Not just being frivolous or paranoid. At every point of the news generating process someone's making a value judgement for you about what you are interested in and what's important to keep you informed. Their judgement is not always free from the influences of the need to avoid upsetting their employer, their employer's business acquaintances, and the social structures that their employer relies on.
Corporations are winning the war against our rights
I'm having difficulty seeing who anyone has the right to upload and share the work of some one else. You might want to argue that the relevant copyright laws are flawed, but I am at a total loss to see how anyone's rights are being infringed in this situation.
So what good does it do you to know who sold your address? The horse is out of the barn by the time you start getting spam. They've already sold your address. You were planning to call them up and have them un-ring the bell?
Good point. I use a similar method when subscribing to some websites. I have an address I know for a fact I only provided to a single website, run by a well-known international company. It has never been used for any other reason, yet now I get pharmacy spam and phishing on it. I don't believe spam found it by accident, it would be too much of a coincidence.
But short of taking said international company to court, what am I gonna do?
You're missing the next page where Daily Mail service returns to normal; an analysis of how running barefoot may affect your property value, how sponging benefit cheats are given your money to spend on fancy sport shoes, and a reconstruction of how lovely and dainty Diana's feet would have looked, had she not been forced to wear shoes by evil Charles.
I think you are confusing two entirely different things;
1/ Killing yourself. Generally a bad thing. Messy and definitely adversely affects your lifestyle and ability to pursue happiness.
2/ Saying you're going to kill yourself. Gets you attention and sympathy without tying yourself to any future obligations or inconveniences. Tends to get old if used to excess though.
This Chicago student has a healthy understanding of the difference between the two. Although she did chicken out by saying she was planning, past tense. Real hard-core usage would make it clear that it was still very much an option.
Do you realize that "screenshots or it didn't happen" isn't actually a sound rhetorical argument?
Do you realise that "millions of people do this" arguments are pathetic if not backed up with actual facts? I just asked one thousand people on the street, and they all agree with me. 50 million surveyed Americans also support this. 90% of unsupported facts are made up bollocks.
Here's your example.
Thanks. However one example isn't a trend. The unfortunate facts are that having seen the video for nothing, many of these "new fans" would then go and download it off some torrent. So the original artist is still no better off, while google and piratebay have pocketed any resulting advert revenue. Who can then blame them for being pissed off?
Millions of people have discovered music that was once thought lost
Care to give examples for that lost music? Videos, maybe, but the music itself?
artists have gained new fans, even restarted their careers by people rediscovering their music through the magic of Youtube.
Like who?
you are going to lose more revenue than you know.
Which money? You are arguing that google should get these videos for free, plus the related advertising revenue. The "millions of new fans" you speak of are also getting the music for free. So where exactly are the music creators getting the money?
although they cannot *legally* force you to answer any questions on it, and in principal aren't allowed to discriminate and it's 'entirely voluntary'.
That reasoning would get you no-where in a UK court. Asking these sorts of questions implicitly implies that the answer affects your chances of getting the job, particularly when 'hidden' within a collection of other apparently innocuous questions. Declining to answer could then be interpreted negatively by the employer.
Many employers in the UK have a separate survey containing questions like ethnicity, sexual preference. But they must be kept very separate from the rest of the recruitment process and only be used for anonymised discrimination monitoring. Those involved with the actual interviews usually never see them, so that they can never be accused of using them in the selection process.
You can't compere the economy of a 3rd world country to a 1st world country. You hear "they can live on a thousand dollars a year, why can't you?" like I heard from the idiot economists teaching that class, but they can't see that if prices were a 50th as high as ours, we could live on a 50th of the paycheck.
It's a pity you didn't hang around in that class, you might have learned something. What do you think exchange rates are, if not a comparison of a 3rd world economy to a 1st world? The exchange rate is not some fixed figure that bears no relation to prices and paychecks in the two countries. If they were a 50th as high in America, then the exchange rate would reflect that and the question would still be the same, just with different amounts. You'd would live on a thousand dollar pay check, but they're now living off 20 dollars a year. The point remains the same.
I called them idiots,
Under your breath I hope, otherwise you'd look pretty dumb.
marched out of the class (with half the other students following me),
Are you sure the class wasn't finishing at that point?
went straight to enrollment and cancelled that class. History has shown those economic "experts" wrong, and me right.
The state of modern music is so bad that radio stations can't find enough songs to play to fill up an hour's commute with songs made in the last decade.
Congratulations. You have successfully attained middle-age. You will now spend the next 20 years complaining the same things about "music these days" as the previous generation of middle-agers, who were saying what the generation before them said.
However, some sad news that has to be broken to you; you haven't heard a decent mainstream track in the past year because you are no longer in the target market for mainstream music. Middle-agers simply don't buy enough music because they've already spent a quarter of a century buying music. For the most part they have plenty of tunes and memories to last them the rest of their lives.
And more news for you; radio stations have always played oldies from the last decade. It's just that you never noticed the last couple of decades, because everything was new to you. It's only now you're such an old geezer does it become an issue because you've heard it all before. See my above comments re your recent middle-agehood, and congratulations once more.
Why is it that slashdot's geezers know the difference between "lose" and "loose", and between their, they're, and there? Maybe because they've had more time to read more books and figure out the context of those words' uses?
Except I knew the difference between all these words by my mid-teens, if not earlier. It doesn't take a further 20 years and geezerhood to figure them out, just a half-way decent educational system when you're young.
As the parent points out, just as soon as Linux reaches an appreciable market share it will be getting administered by users who don't know, or don't care, about security. Once this happens it won't matter even in the slightest how secure, or not, Linux is in comparison to Windows. There will be viruses and there will be infections. The inescapable thing that all operating systems have in common guarantees this; the weak point in the security between the seat and keyboard.
If Linux developers ignore this fact they'll be ensuring the inevitable is even messier than it needs be. Fortunately, I don't think most are that blinded by complacency.
Congratulations, you are the one millionth slashdotter to have cracked this joke.
Still, isn't it nice to know that in an ever changing technological landscape, one thing can always be depended on to surface in a slashdot thread regarding music licencing.
Slashdot Mirror
You have an amusing and naive idea of human nature.
So basically those who create original products (music, films, books, whatever) have to first go around looking for sponsors, before they create anything. How do you think that's going to go?
Originator: Please give me money and I will write a song.
Prospective Sponsor: Sounds good, how's it go?
Originator: Can't tell you, I haven't written it yet. I'll write it once I get enough sponsors.
Prospective Sponsor: Yeah, right. So I'm paying money up front for something I've not heard yet, and may not even get written?
Originator: Uh huh.
Prospective Sponsor:: I'm sorry, you seem to be confusing me with a speculative investor. We got rid of those along with copyright and other outmoded business models with the great filesharing revolution.
Originator: OK. Here's one I've already written. Please sponsor me.
Prospective Sponsor: Hmm, not bad. But now you're expecting me to pay for something I already have for free. Have you really thought this through?
Originator: But if you pay me I'll write more.
Prospective Sponsor: Yeah, tell you what. How about someone else pays you for something they've not heard yet, then I pick it up for free off Pirate Bay later on. That sounds a whole lot less risk to me.
Originator: Come on! It's only fair!
Prospective Sponsor: Fair?! Hahahahahahahaha!
Originator: Damn, maybe this is why we used to have laws for this kind of thing.
The point is that copyright, as with all laws, is a artificial social construct. Like all artificial social constructs, it was created for a reason. That reason hasn't gone away just because circumventing the construct has become so much easier.
In your willingness to wallow in negativity you seem to be omitting the vast, and more probable, range of opportunity between the two extremes of "all these motion controllers fail horribly" and "one vendor's system "wins""
Clearly this controller puts the PS3 in competition against the Wii in terms of motion control. Nintendo will undoubtedly respond with a higher specced Wii. Innovation. Competition. Everyone gets better hardware. Everyone wins.
some people disagree with the obvious majority opinion, as you probably know, but I think they're mostly trolling
So "disagree with the obvious majority opinion" is "mostly tolling"? I think that's a fair indication of compulsory group-think, and an even more worrying opinion than the OP. Do you mod according to this?
I hate the RIAA as much as anyone else on this forum,
I hadn't realised that the group think had become compulsory. Good job too. Now we can all post happy in the knowledge that no-one will question what we say. Bring on the hours of stimulating agreement.
In my opinion, one of the biggest hurdles keeping Linux our of the domestic desktop market is the developers apparently can't put themselves in the shoes of the average user. In my personal experience they tend to hold the end user in contempt, but I realize that this is a fairly small sample of the community...
Exactly, although I wouldn't say most hold the end user in contempt. They simply don't care what the end user thinks. The problem is that too much coding and design gets done by developers whose sole motivation is to gain the respect of their peers. The only people whose opinion they care about, and can satisfactorily verify their status as genius, are other developers. So we get developers writing for the benefit of other developers. The needs and opinions of end-users are of only passing interest.
That is also why documentation distributed with Linux applications is generally appalling. I couldn't possibly exaggerate this. The average quality of documentation on Linux is staggeringly bad. It is scant and inevitably aimed at users who have a level of expertise comfortably above average. Novice users are not welcome. There really is no point to crowing about the open source and free status of Linux software, and rejoicing at the many options open to the linux user, when they are stumped by the very first steps in using it.
Can some one with a clue please fix the headline on this article? UK is not the same as England. English legislation and English databases do not apply to the whole of the UK.
The bank has 29,999,000 SEK
And you honestly believe that would ever happen? They have just enough SEK to gain before the law firm notices, gets very annoyed with their bank for colluding with a random bunch of nobodies in an obvious attempt to rip them off, and closes the account.
End result; perhaps 1000 SEK, one lost profitable customer and a probable law suit into the bargain. Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
I say again, how stupid do you think the bank is?
Money that random people on the internet choose to pay the law firm has nothing to do with paying the fine. They are under no obligation to accept money from random people, or in anyway consider it payment of the fine.
And they will not go into a minus. It isn't going to happen. Banks in general do not chose to let themselves become stooges in schemes designed to annoy their customers. Particularly successful law firms.
Just how many transaction do you think they'll allow to occur before the law firm, or more likely their bank, either closes the account to incoming cash, or more likely simply bounces all amounts under a certain figure? The bank is the one who would levvy this alleged 2 SEK fee, yet they have absolutely nothing to gain from playing along with this dumb game.
Just how stupid do you think the law firm and their bank is?
From TFA; "A friend of anakata told Blog Pirate"
Well, with that kind of authoritative inside knowledge, what could possibly go wrong?
Anyone who imagines this is a way to bankrupt a company, as opposed to just giving them money, is as dumb as this idea is. And any defendant who thinks that attempting to bankrupt the opposing party's law firm is a good response to losing their case... well, dumb doesn't go halfway far enough.
"Jitter and freeze"?
This lacks the kind of hysteria we need. If this was really serious they'd be saying computers will emit smoke and sparks will come out of keyboards. And freezing should only happen after your computer has had time to squawk "Error! Error!" in a robotic voice.
Bull. I work at the second-largest newspaper in Alaska and pick wire stories based on what people are interested in and what folks need to stay informed.
And who picks what stories get on the wire?
Not just being frivolous or paranoid. At every point of the news generating process someone's making a value judgement for you about what you are interested in and what's important to keep you informed. Their judgement is not always free from the influences of the need to avoid upsetting their employer, their employer's business acquaintances, and the social structures that their employer relies on.
Corporations are winning the war against our rights
I'm having difficulty seeing who anyone has the right to upload and share the work of some one else. You might want to argue that the relevant copyright laws are flawed, but I am at a total loss to see how anyone's rights are being infringed in this situation.
Could you explain?
So what good does it do you to know who sold your address? The horse is out of the barn by the time you start getting spam. They've already sold your address. You were planning to call them up and have them un-ring the bell?
Good point. I use a similar method when subscribing to some websites. I have an address I know for a fact I only provided to a single website, run by a well-known international company. It has never been used for any other reason, yet now I get pharmacy spam and phishing on it. I don't believe spam found it by accident, it would be too much of a coincidence.
But short of taking said international company to court, what am I gonna do?
There are people who don't live in the U.S.???
Clearly these people have no privacy concerns; the fact no-one's heard of them provides plenty of privacy.
You're missing the next page where Daily Mail service returns to normal; an analysis of how running barefoot may affect your property value, how sponging benefit cheats are given your money to spend on fancy sport shoes, and a reconstruction of how lovely and dainty Diana's feet would have looked, had she not been forced to wear shoes by evil Charles.
I think you are confusing two entirely different things;
1/ Killing yourself. Generally a bad thing. Messy and definitely adversely affects your lifestyle and ability to pursue happiness.
2/ Saying you're going to kill yourself. Gets you attention and sympathy without tying yourself to any future obligations or inconveniences. Tends to get old if used to excess though.
This Chicago student has a healthy understanding of the difference between the two. Although she did chicken out by saying she was planning, past tense. Real hard-core usage would make it clear that it was still very much an option.
Do you realize that "screenshots or it didn't happen" isn't actually a sound rhetorical argument?
Do you realise that "millions of people do this" arguments are pathetic if not backed up with actual facts? I just asked one thousand people on the street, and they all agree with me. 50 million surveyed Americans also support this. 90% of unsupported facts are made up bollocks.
Here's your example.
Thanks. However one example isn't a trend. The unfortunate facts are that having seen the video for nothing, many of these "new fans" would then go and download it off some torrent. So the original artist is still no better off, while google and piratebay have pocketed any resulting advert revenue. Who can then blame them for being pissed off?
Millions of people have discovered music that was once thought lost
Care to give examples for that lost music? Videos, maybe, but the music itself?
artists have gained new fans, even restarted their careers by people rediscovering their music through the magic of Youtube.
Like who?
you are going to lose more revenue than you know.
Which money? You are arguing that google should get these videos for free, plus the related advertising revenue. The "millions of new fans" you speak of are also getting the music for free. So where exactly are the music creators getting the money?
although they cannot *legally* force you to answer any questions on it, and in principal aren't allowed to discriminate and it's 'entirely voluntary'.
That reasoning would get you no-where in a UK court. Asking these sorts of questions implicitly implies that the answer affects your chances of getting the job, particularly when 'hidden' within a collection of other apparently innocuous questions. Declining to answer could then be interpreted negatively by the employer.
Many employers in the UK have a separate survey containing questions like ethnicity, sexual preference. But they must be kept very separate from the rest of the recruitment process and only be used for anonymised discrimination monitoring. Those involved with the actual interviews usually never see them, so that they can never be accused of using them in the selection process.
You can't compere the economy of a 3rd world country to a 1st world country. You hear "they can live on a thousand dollars a year, why can't you?" like I heard from the idiot economists teaching that class, but they can't see that if prices were a 50th as high as ours, we could live on a 50th of the paycheck.
It's a pity you didn't hang around in that class, you might have learned something. What do you think exchange rates are, if not a comparison of a 3rd world economy to a 1st world? The exchange rate is not some fixed figure that bears no relation to prices and paychecks in the two countries. If they were a 50th as high in America, then the exchange rate would reflect that and the question would still be the same, just with different amounts. You'd would live on a thousand dollar pay check, but they're now living off 20 dollars a year. The point remains the same.
I called them idiots,
Under your breath I hope, otherwise you'd look pretty dumb.
marched out of the class (with half the other students following me),
Are you sure the class wasn't finishing at that point?
went straight to enrollment and cancelled that class. History has shown those economic "experts" wrong, and me right.
Sure has, in bizarro world.
The state of modern music is so bad that radio stations can't find enough songs to play to fill up an hour's commute with songs made in the last decade.
Congratulations. You have successfully attained middle-age. You will now spend the next 20 years complaining the same things about "music these days" as the previous generation of middle-agers, who were saying what the generation before them said.
However, some sad news that has to be broken to you; you haven't heard a decent mainstream track in the past year because you are no longer in the target market for mainstream music. Middle-agers simply don't buy enough music because they've already spent a quarter of a century buying music. For the most part they have plenty of tunes and memories to last them the rest of their lives.
And more news for you; radio stations have always played oldies from the last decade. It's just that you never noticed the last couple of decades, because everything was new to you. It's only now you're such an old geezer does it become an issue because you've heard it all before. See my above comments re your recent middle-agehood, and congratulations once more.
Why is it that slashdot's geezers know the difference between "lose" and "loose", and between their, they're, and there? Maybe because they've had more time to read more books and figure out the context of those words' uses?
Except I knew the difference between all these words by my mid-teens, if not earlier. It doesn't take a further 20 years and geezerhood to figure them out, just a half-way decent educational system when you're young.
As the parent points out, just as soon as Linux reaches an appreciable market share it will be getting administered by users who don't know, or don't care, about security. Once this happens it won't matter even in the slightest how secure, or not, Linux is in comparison to Windows. There will be viruses and there will be infections. The inescapable thing that all operating systems have in common guarantees this; the weak point in the security between the seat and keyboard.
If Linux developers ignore this fact they'll be ensuring the inevitable is even messier than it needs be. Fortunately, I don't think most are that blinded by complacency.
Congratulations, you are the one millionth slashdotter to have cracked this joke.
Still, isn't it nice to know that in an ever changing technological landscape, one thing can always be depended on to surface in a slashdot thread regarding music licencing.