Yes, that's right. Because the movies are so crappy, people actively seek out even crappier camcorded versions, so that they can waste their time watching them on crappy tiny screens at home. That'll show 'em! Yup, that makes perfect sense.
I look forward to your proof that the public feels ripped of everytime they walk out a theatre. Or could it be your argument is a large amount of arm waving aimed at justifying what you know to be wrong?
In your bizarre version of logic, if it's not a big budget film that meets your approval, well, it deserves it. Amazingly, not all good films make massive profits and not all good films will meet your approval. If you end up watching as bad movies as you claim, well guess what that says about you. Never heard of a movie review? Not learnt your lesson from the last "The Rock" action film? Stop going to see movies aimed at 14 year olds!
We're flat out of fanciful terrorist ideas to scare the public with and need some new ones. Have you got any? Don't worry if they sound totally implausible, once we're finished sprucing them up only the unpatriotic will be laughing at them.
You should be outraged because it's called the bluff of everyone who's complained about DRM only on the grounds that it stopped them legitimately playing their music as they wished. Nothing to do with it stopping file sharing, no siree.
Cue the wriggling about while people think up fanciful scenarios that makes name embedding a bad thing too, and a violation of their rights. Just as long as you don't get the idea that the real problem they have is with anything that stops file sharing. Nope, definitely not that.
The problem with "books" was you couldn't back them up. And if you lost one, or wanted it in the new fancy binding, you had to go out and buy it again, even when you'd already bought the right to read it! These printed page things had their DRM built right in to the product!
No wonder they never caught on. The public would never accept such restrictions on their rights!
No, there are actually several viable ways the music "industry" could prosper and artists thrive.
Of course there is. But they all rather rely on the entire music industry operating to a different economic model than any other industry in the capitalist society about it. And that includes radio stations. Too many people seem to think that access to music is a right, particularly other people's music, therefore the music industry has an obligation to maximize its output rather that maximize its profits, unlike any other industry. It simply won't work, the music companies not playing to the same rules get ripped off and squeezed out of existence by those around it.
But the music business has always been that way: greedy men who can't see much past the profits from this month.
I think you underestimate them. The music business is led by business people like any other. What they're doing is no different from what any other industry would do in the same position. They are trying to stake out their position in the market because if they don't, recent history would suggest that their business would be eroded away to nothing, by both legal and illegal means. This is why the gloves are off and the fighting has gotten dirty. Vigorous defence of copyright, and prosecution of those who infringe it, is the only recourse they have.
Besides, you don't honestly think that if the music industry totally changed its ways it would stop people attempting to obtain music without payment? No matter what, two things will never change. Firstly the people who produce the music have more right than anyone to exploit all potential profit from it. If that means still earning royalties from it through radio adverts 40 years on, then so be it. If you can produce music with that kind of lasting appeal then you deserve to be able to retire on it. Secondly, other people will always try to avoid being the ones to provide the payment, and will always have a good excuse to try to make it sound reasonable.
I'll grant that this is a surprise to most people and it really is via the record industry that many Slashdotters have learned this unfortunate fact about the business world
The unfortunate fact is that most Slashdotters have zero business knowledge, except how to use the phrase "change your business model". What they do know about is software, specifically free software. Since this also fits on a CD, they have difficulty understanding why the music business can't work like open-source. Nor do they see any double standard in demanding that copyright defends the rights of open-source developers and their licences, but leaves the holders of music's copyrights with no recourse to law.
What somebody needs to do is come up with a business model for a record company where the record company funds all the costs of production, promotion, distribution, and so on, yet does not attempt to recoup those costs before paying the artists. The first Slashdotter to do this will be very popular indeed.
I'm afraid you're assuming that the average Slashdotter is looking for solutions. What they're really looking for are excuses, and will continue to find them no matter what.
Also, it's my understanding that the major labels could be receiving their portion of money that AllOfMP3 collects by participating in Russia's licensing system.
Indeed. And what kind of an arrangement would that be? It would be an arrangement where AllOfMP3 decided (themselves) that they are operating within a loophole in Russian law (defined by themselves) that says they pay a royalty rate that they decided (themselves). And all the labels need to do is fall into line and take the money that AllOfMP3 have deigned to give them for selling their product without their permission. What could be easier?
I simply can't imagine why any company would have a problem signing up to that! No nasty precedents set there!
You say it as if it was a fact. It would appear the law thinks there's a good chance they were.
If I sold vouchers redeemable at your local fence, would I be doing anything illegal? It's not a distinction I'd like to argue in court, which is what all those resellers have concluded.
If the music industry doesn't respect the law, then why should the 'pirates'?
Well if you're going to use that level of argument, I think a "They started it first!" answers any further questions you might have.
AllOfMP3 was piracy, you were just paying for it. Just because it dressed itself up in a professional website and pretended to be something else doesn't change that.
Still makes no sense. If ISPs are worried about their liability for pirate traffic, and believe they can identify pirate traffic, then they would squash that traffic totally. They would not just 'slow' it.
Simply slowing the traffic according to what's in the IP packet makes them more liable, not less. It says that they think they know which traffic is illegal, but they are still permitting it. That'll sound good in court. "Yes, we knew this traffic was involved in an illegal practice, and we implemented special procedures that allowed it." Far better for the ISP to claim that they have no practical method of identifying illegal traffic (which is nearer the truth anyway), and so can not be liable for it and will not take action against it.
Any action the ISP is taking against this traffic is simply to do with bandwidth. They may well think they can throttle this traffic easier than others because people are less likely to complain about it. But they are not taking a legal or moral judgement on the content. To do either would put them in a position of being responsible for it.
But of course, being unfairly picked on by some misguided crusade by ISPs is exactly what P2Pers would prefer was occurring. Anything that they can create a fuss about that helps divert attention from what they're actually doing.
The article states that "In an attempt to restrict how much illegal sharing can be done on their network, ISPs use a technique called 'packet shaping'. And thereafter goes on with a great deal of outraged huffing and puffing about treating people as criminals.
But no evidence is offered to justify this statement. How do they know that ISPs are doing it to limit illegal sharing? Is it not far more likely that they're doing it to save on bandwidth. In which case, no-one's being treated as a criminal, they're being treated as bandwidth-hogs. An issue worth discussion, but an important distinction, I think.
Yes, it's unfair that people are forced to work to pay their bills. There should be free money for all with no incentive to work.
The point is that someone is making money off playing these records on the radio, from the advertising revenue, and they certainly aren't involved producing the vital ingredient; the singing the song or playing the piano. That was done by the original musicians.
So if someone is making cash from playing this music on the radio, why shouldn't the musicians be getting their share? They're the ones with the talent that produced the key product. Why should it be the radio station owners who are pocketing all the money? What work are they doing to pay their bills?
It's not like this was a total unheard of situation. The capitalist system is full of examples of people living off the proceeds of something they did, once, a long time ago. It's part of what drives people while they're working, that they might be able to live of the proceeds later in life. The whole pension industry is based on it.
It's not the dumb-ass user's fault that they're too stupid to operate a computer but think they need one anyway...
There's a big difference between operating a computer and repairing it. Can you repair and maintain every appliance you own? What about your air conditioning? Badly maintained air conditioning can harbour seriously dangerous bacteria. Could you fix one infected with Legionnaires' disease? Probably not. Guess that makes you a dumb ass user who only thinks he needs air conditioning.
It's not the manufacturers' fault for making computers that are easy to pwn (hardware or software, something was an easy target)...
Define 'easy'. If a bunch of organised criminals really set their minds on breaking into my house they'd find it pretty easy. My house is not a high security building. Whose fault's that? The house builder?
I also found it amusing you railing against dumb people and using the word 'pwn' in the same post, possibly the dumbest expression of the 21st century (so far). Well done.
It wouldn't be slashdot without some error somewhere.
This one completely negates everything that is written previously, so must be in line for some kind of prize. But I guess a study that's sloppy science deserves a sloppy write-up.
Someone's going to have to explain to me why this measure, designed to stop people filming a copy of a film then distributing it, has anything to do with "My Rights Online".
A number of us have been saying for years... but it was too hot, so we went back to the shadows.... The silent majority of us ignore these laws. Now there's a vocal minority who are saying enough is enough.
Ha ha ha ha! Are you writing the trailer for the movie? Get over yourself, you are not a freedom fighter. You're just another guy who wants stuff without paying for it.
If you're producing something that people want, what's unjust about asking that they pay for it and not take it for free? If "a number of us" can simply take it for free, why should anyone else pay? And if no-one pays, where's the incentive to produce it? Who's going to make a living doing it?
I have never heard or seen any good teacher draw ire for being a good teacher.
You think every teenager expelled/given detention/sent out the classroom/whatever is happy? Do you think they always go home that day thinking "Well, I deserved that and it was justified if the teacher is to maintain respect and a healthy learning environment in the classroom. What a good teacher!" Or do they, just possibly, sometimes go home really pissed off with revenge in mind?
CCing emails to other parties is rarely a good way to force people to do things, and a very good way to seriously annoy them. Even if you're in the right. Even if you're doing it for the best of reasons. It should only be done as a last resort when you no longer care.
It already involves external parties if you are in the process of purchasing software licenses (the original ones that are to be copied).
Wrong. Whether you observe the terms of the software licenses is not ultimately the responsibility of the vendor. The only possible reason for CCing the vendor is to try to force the manager into doing the right thing, and this isn't the way to do that. All the manager has to do is claim that is was all just a misunderstanding that could have been easily resolved, but you've totally screwed any possibility of meaningful sales negotiation with the vendor because they now have inside info. They can easily then sack you with justification.
Yeah, cos teenagers are never malicious, never unfair and would never dream of making up lies about a perfectly good teacher just because they can be anonymous and get away with it.
Your trust in the wholesomeness of children is touching, but rather misguided. Teachers don't need your newsflash. They already know that sometimes being a good teacher means drawing the ire of some of your pupils.
And a big welcome to a whole new Linux persecution complex! It's a game the whole family can play!
Step 1/ Create your own possible scenario of Linux persecution. Do not worry about any supporting evidence or factual basis.
Step 2/ Write to someone in authority complaining about it.
Here's a a fun example to get you started!
Dear Director General of the BBC,
Why, oh why, did I decided yesterday that you would never create a Linux version of iPlayer? This is unacceptable and I can't believe I'd imagine you even considering such a thing! I demand that by the end of the month I'm certain such a thing is possible.
Frankly, if you don't sort out the ideas in my head more to my liking, I will lobby my MP to have you sacked.
It has also crossed my mind that there may be no new series of Dr Who next year. This is outrageous! Is there no end to the stupidity I can imagine you indulging in?! Sort yourself out!
* And, I dare say, as special effects artists, the Mythbusters are probably uniquely qualified to speak with authority on the viability of ballistic automobiles.
True. At least you can always say that Mythbusters attempt to investigate things using half-way decent methodology. At the end of the day, it's just a TV programme, but they try to investigate without involving wild assumptions, leaps in logic and emphasis on subjective feelings. Unlike many other popular "investigative" TV programmes.
Hey, they're teaching kids to go out and prove things for themselves rather than believe them off the bat, and that's never a bad thing.
It's only a good thing if they're first taught how to think critically and how to prove things. Too much of people "going out and proving things for themselves" involves three steps;
1/ Whoah! This is very complicated! It would take years of study to fully understand it. 2/ Screw that, I'm just going to apply my in depth knowledge of what looks right, and what seems to me to be common sense. That'll do just as well, be a whole lot easier and won't involve me admitting I'm out of my depth. 3/ My conclusion are in, can be summed up in one easy paragraph, and are just as valid as the guys who've spent 30 years studying the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's right. Because the movies are so crappy, people actively seek out even crappier camcorded versions, so that they can waste their time watching them on crappy tiny screens at home. That'll show 'em! Yup, that makes perfect sense.
I look forward to your proof that the public feels ripped of everytime they walk out a theatre. Or could it be your argument is a large amount of arm waving aimed at justifying what you know to be wrong?
In your bizarre version of logic, if it's not a big budget film that meets your approval, well, it deserves it. Amazingly, not all good films make massive profits and not all good films will meet your approval. If you end up watching as bad movies as you claim, well guess what that says about you. Never heard of a movie review? Not learnt your lesson from the last "The Rock" action film? Stop going to see movies aimed at 14 year olds!
We're flat out of fanciful terrorist ideas to scare the public with and need some new ones. Have you got any? Don't worry if they sound totally implausible, once we're finished sprucing them up only the unpatriotic will be laughing at them.
Yours,
Authorities
Cue the wriggling about while people think up fanciful scenarios that makes name embedding a bad thing too, and a violation of their rights. Just as long as you don't get the idea that the real problem they have is with anything that stops file sharing. Nope, definitely not that.
No wonder they never caught on. The public would never accept such restrictions on their rights!
Of course there is. But they all rather rely on the entire music industry operating to a different economic model than any other industry in the capitalist society about it. And that includes radio stations. Too many people seem to think that access to music is a right, particularly other people's music, therefore the music industry has an obligation to maximize its output rather that maximize its profits, unlike any other industry. It simply won't work, the music companies not playing to the same rules get ripped off and squeezed out of existence by those around it.
But the music business has always been that way: greedy men who can't see much past the profits from this month.
I think you underestimate them. The music business is led by business people like any other. What they're doing is no different from what any other industry would do in the same position. They are trying to stake out their position in the market because if they don't, recent history would suggest that their business would be eroded away to nothing, by both legal and illegal means. This is why the gloves are off and the fighting has gotten dirty. Vigorous defence of copyright, and prosecution of those who infringe it, is the only recourse they have.
Besides, you don't honestly think that if the music industry totally changed its ways it would stop people attempting to obtain music without payment? No matter what, two things will never change. Firstly the people who produce the music have more right than anyone to exploit all potential profit from it. If that means still earning royalties from it through radio adverts 40 years on, then so be it. If you can produce music with that kind of lasting appeal then you deserve to be able to retire on it. Secondly, other people will always try to avoid being the ones to provide the payment, and will always have a good excuse to try to make it sound reasonable.
The unfortunate fact is that most Slashdotters have zero business knowledge, except how to use the phrase "change your business model". What they do know about is software, specifically free software. Since this also fits on a CD, they have difficulty understanding why the music business can't work like open-source. Nor do they see any double standard in demanding that copyright defends the rights of open-source developers and their licences, but leaves the holders of music's copyrights with no recourse to law.
What somebody needs to do is come up with a business model for a record company where the record company funds all the costs of production, promotion, distribution, and so on, yet does not attempt to recoup those costs before paying the artists. The first Slashdotter to do this will be very popular indeed.
I'm afraid you're assuming that the average Slashdotter is looking for solutions. What they're really looking for are excuses, and will continue to find them no matter what.
Indeed. And what kind of an arrangement would that be? It would be an arrangement where AllOfMP3 decided (themselves) that they are operating within a loophole in Russian law (defined by themselves) that says they pay a royalty rate that they decided (themselves). And all the labels need to do is fall into line and take the money that AllOfMP3 have deigned to give them for selling their product without their permission. What could be easier?
I simply can't imagine why any company would have a problem signing up to that! No nasty precedents set there!
You say it as if it was a fact. It would appear the law thinks there's a good chance they were.
If I sold vouchers redeemable at your local fence, would I be doing anything illegal? It's not a distinction I'd like to argue in court, which is what all those resellers have concluded.
If the music industry doesn't respect the law, then why should the 'pirates'?
Well if you're going to use that level of argument, I think a "They started it first!" answers any further questions you might have.
AllOfMP3 was piracy, you were just paying for it. Just because it dressed itself up in a professional website and pretended to be something else doesn't change that.
Simply slowing the traffic according to what's in the IP packet makes them more liable, not less. It says that they think they know which traffic is illegal, but they are still permitting it. That'll sound good in court. "Yes, we knew this traffic was involved in an illegal practice, and we implemented special procedures that allowed it." Far better for the ISP to claim that they have no practical method of identifying illegal traffic (which is nearer the truth anyway), and so can not be liable for it and will not take action against it.
Any action the ISP is taking against this traffic is simply to do with bandwidth. They may well think they can throttle this traffic easier than others because people are less likely to complain about it. But they are not taking a legal or moral judgement on the content. To do either would put them in a position of being responsible for it.
But of course, being unfairly picked on by some misguided crusade by ISPs is exactly what P2Pers would prefer was occurring. Anything that they can create a fuss about that helps divert attention from what they're actually doing.
But no evidence is offered to justify this statement. How do they know that ISPs are doing it to limit illegal sharing? Is it not far more likely that they're doing it to save on bandwidth. In which case, no-one's being treated as a criminal, they're being treated as bandwidth-hogs. An issue worth discussion, but an important distinction, I think.
The point is that someone is making money off playing these records on the radio, from the advertising revenue, and they certainly aren't involved producing the vital ingredient; the singing the song or playing the piano. That was done by the original musicians.
So if someone is making cash from playing this music on the radio, why shouldn't the musicians be getting their share? They're the ones with the talent that produced the key product. Why should it be the radio station owners who are pocketing all the money? What work are they doing to pay their bills?
It's not like this was a total unheard of situation. The capitalist system is full of examples of people living off the proceeds of something they did, once, a long time ago. It's part of what drives people while they're working, that they might be able to live of the proceeds later in life. The whole pension industry is based on it.
I'd have thought so.
Make business arrangements with criminals and you deserve to get ripped off.
There's a big difference between operating a computer and repairing it. Can you repair and maintain every appliance you own? What about your air conditioning? Badly maintained air conditioning can harbour seriously dangerous bacteria. Could you fix one infected with Legionnaires' disease? Probably not. Guess that makes you a dumb ass user who only thinks he needs air conditioning.
It's not the manufacturers' fault for making computers that are easy to pwn (hardware or software, something was an easy target)...
Define 'easy'. If a bunch of organised criminals really set their minds on breaking into my house they'd find it pretty easy. My house is not a high security building. Whose fault's that? The house builder?
I also found it amusing you railing against dumb people and using the word 'pwn' in the same post, possibly the dumbest expression of the 21st century (so far). Well done.
It wouldn't be slashdot without some error somewhere.
This one completely negates everything that is written previously, so must be in line for some kind of prize. But I guess a study that's sloppy science deserves a sloppy write-up.
Randi has a copy of the full videos on his website
http://www.randi.org/uri/index.html
I'm pretty sure the Pikoro didn't specify becoming a lying, slacking leech as part of his career change.
Someone's going to have to explain to me why this measure, designed to stop people filming a copy of a film then distributing it, has anything to do with "My Rights Online".
When did I get the right to see a movie for free?
Ha ha ha ha! Are you writing the trailer for the movie? Get over yourself, you are not a freedom fighter. You're just another guy who wants stuff without paying for it.
If you're producing something that people want, what's unjust about asking that they pay for it and not take it for free? If "a number of us" can simply take it for free, why should anyone else pay? And if no-one pays, where's the incentive to produce it? Who's going to make a living doing it?
You think every teenager expelled/given detention/sent out the classroom/whatever is happy? Do you think they always go home that day thinking "Well, I deserved that and it was justified if the teacher is to maintain respect and a healthy learning environment in the classroom. What a good teacher!" Or do they, just possibly, sometimes go home really pissed off with revenge in mind?
It already involves external parties if you are in the process of purchasing software licenses (the original ones that are to be copied).
Wrong. Whether you observe the terms of the software licenses is not ultimately the responsibility of the vendor. The only possible reason for CCing the vendor is to try to force the manager into doing the right thing, and this isn't the way to do that. All the manager has to do is claim that is was all just a misunderstanding that could have been easily resolved, but you've totally screwed any possibility of meaningful sales negotiation with the vendor because they now have inside info. They can easily then sack you with justification.
Yeah, cos teenagers are never malicious, never unfair and would never dream of making up lies about a perfectly good teacher just because they can be anonymous and get away with it.
Your trust in the wholesomeness of children is touching, but rather misguided. Teachers don't need your newsflash. They already know that sometimes being a good teacher means drawing the ire of some of your pupils.
Step 1/ Create your own possible scenario of Linux persecution. Do not worry about any supporting evidence or factual basis.
Step 2/ Write to someone in authority complaining about it.
Here's a a fun example to get you started!
Dear Director General of the BBC,
Why, oh why, did I decided yesterday that you would never create a Linux version of iPlayer? This is unacceptable and I can't believe I'd imagine you even considering such a thing! I demand that by the end of the month I'm certain such a thing is possible.
Frankly, if you don't sort out the ideas in my head more to my liking, I will lobby my MP to have you sacked.
It has also crossed my mind that there may be no new series of Dr Who next year. This is outrageous! Is there no end to the stupidity I can imagine you indulging in?! Sort yourself out!
True. At least you can always say that Mythbusters attempt to investigate things using half-way decent methodology. At the end of the day, it's just a TV programme, but they try to investigate without involving wild assumptions, leaps in logic and emphasis on subjective feelings. Unlike many other popular "investigative" TV programmes.
It's only a good thing if they're first taught how to think critically and how to prove things. Too much of people "going out and proving things for themselves" involves three steps;
1/ Whoah! This is very complicated! It would take years of study to fully understand it.
2/ Screw that, I'm just going to apply my in depth knowledge of what looks right, and what seems to me to be common sense. That'll do just as well, be a whole lot easier and won't involve me admitting I'm out of my depth.
3/ My conclusion are in, can be summed up in one easy paragraph, and are just as valid as the guys who've spent 30 years studying the subject.