Hmmm, I don't quite agree. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." I don't know where you live, but not everyone likes to work for free all the time. it isn't about rights, it's about incentive. There would be a lot less progress if people didn't have any incentive to create those works in the first place, and a lot less if they have to do some grunt job just to stay alive when that time could be spent producing content instead.
Your analogies don't follow either. If you don't pay those workers, then you either you have no results of that service or you have to do the work yourself. So if you don't pay the musicians and artists, by your analogy you will either have no music or go about creating that art and music yourself, right?
If you're so annoyed by the other people in the theater, then do something about it: alert the theater managers, get them to do something about those people, or just patron another theater instead, and make your concerns vocal. Otherwise, nothing will be done and those theaters will continue to suck.
Why??? I have made many cd and dvds (yes with my own content) and it didn't cost me thousands of dollars. If its costing you that much to make a cd then I think you are doing something wrong.
I'd like to hear the content you've created and put on your CDs and DVDs, and I'm not talking about your home videos of you and your kids. You've created something that millions of people want to enjoy, using professional equipment (which by itself can easily cost a lot of money, hell, just your computer could be $1000 for a mid-line system), and distributed it across the country to millions of people, and all for under $1000?! Man, I wanna see that. Please post up some examples of your work. Better yet, post up the complete collection of your work. Not everyone wants to listen to nothing but amature-created music of slapped together pre-recorded loops in Garageband or a warez Sonar or Logic.
It you as a movie maker don't want to send your films directly to their homes... you can go do something else. If writting books ain't paying your bills find somethink that will. Do not complain to me and try to change my life to fit your desires.
Will you complain when you no longer have movies or books or music to enjoy? If those people are finding something else to pay the bills with, it means that they aren't producing the content that you think you have the right to consume for free. Do not take my work, which cost me time and money to produce, and fail to compensate me what I feel I'm owed for MY content and complain to me because it fits your desires.
And here we reach the crux, You can't have it both way. Either it cost a lot and is hard to get or its easy to get and costs very little.
Yes I can. It's my content, not yours. I can offer it for whatever I want. I may not sell much of it at a certain price, but that's my right to choose, not yours. The laws of supply and demand are consequences of a free market, not strict rules or moral obligations.
Except that physical laws do not apply here. What cost there is in copying the 1 and 0 is so spread out and marginalized as to be not existant and not is certainly no longer a burden on the producer. Yet that producers is still tring to profit from their old distribution model.
I believe here is the crux of your confusion. You equate producer to distributor. Cost of distribution may be lower, but cost of production does not go down because of that. Trying to interchange producer with distributor was consistant throughout your post, and it is just plain wrong.
Most people either download music, and/or see nothing wrong with it. The "extreme" that you mention is the norm.
Ahhh, groupthink.
There were no "content producers" for most of human history, yet people made music, works of art, and so on. It will be different, neither better nor worse, if the world returns to a state where people are not paid for making digital recordings.
Actually, I think I would have to nitpick that a bit. Do you mean human history overall or just music or art history in particular? If you look at the history of music, the earliest music was produced in the church, for the church by monks that did nothing but that. A little farther along, when you got into composers who actually composed for a living, many of them were commissioned either by the church or patrons. Some composers were even housed by their patrons who provided them with housing, food, clothes, basically everything they needed to live so that they could spend all their time composing instead of having to make a living and leaving little precious time left for making music.
Try being a patron of the arts and pay your little share if you enjoy it so much. The artists will appreciate it much more if they're getting a little slice than none at all. It really isn't your business if "the artists hardly get anything anyway!" That's between the artists and the company. If the artist has a problem with it, they'll deal with it. Of course, that doesn't apply to the indy artist who doesn't have the marketing and distributing power of a multi-billion dollar industry behind them, and they are the noted exception.
Tell me that sitting in a place where you can trust noone, get ass pounded, get full body cavity searched regularly, and stay confined in a small cell for over 10 years when you are sentenced to death is not cruel or unusual. I would never even think of doing that to someone no matter what they did.
Would you tell that to the guy that raped, beat, and then killed your 14 year old daughter? I find it hard to consider "human" someone who would be capable of such atrocity and, in turn, difficulty in my feelings of sympathy and attribution of human rights. When you know that those conditions could be the consequences for your actions, it should be a pretty simple choice: don't break the law if you don't like the consequences. Otherwise, this is where you go. The monster you might have sympathy for "no matter what they did" probably wouldn't have the same regard for the life of your or your loved ones.
Granted I'm a little kooky because I believe that murder should be legal so that it would deter crime, but I'm way in the minority with that belief.
I believe you are, because under certain circumstances, it is legal to use deadly force to protect yourself or your property from an attacker. I guess it depends on what you define as "murder".
Ironically, bars and restaurants are for some reason still legal to server(sic) alcohol even though you are not allowed to leave the place nor stay there.
I don't quite understand what you mean here. Why aren't you allowed to leave a place? Do you mean you aren't allowed to "drive" away? I also don't quite understand about it being ironic about it still being legal for bars and resturants to serve alcohol, then follow it up with a quote about prohibition. Am I missing something here?
I think it's called "the good having to suffer for the bad".
How do you propose to make "only" the music downloaders pay the tax? If someone is already downloading music for free (both financially and consequentially), would they opt to sign up for Yahoo's (or anyone else's) service or just continue doing what they're already doing?
Evolution doesn't necessarily have anything to do with people living or dying, but whether or not they breed. Someone could live a long, long life and not breed, stopping the passing on of that individual's genes.
I also find it interesting that you find natural methods of evolution (read: over long periods of time) to be deplorable and equate it somehow with suffereing, yet you advocate the immediate experimenting with genes in our population.
Hmmm, I'm thinking if the battery in your pacemaker or other implanted device failed, you'd have more to worry about than some long-term radiation damage.
Yeah, all that computing power could be used on better things.... like posting on/. Or Quake 3. Or finishing Duke Nukem Forever! Don't they know there are hungry children all over the world! Won't someone please think of the children?!
I'm just guessing since I don't know much about vacuum systems like this, but decreasing the above pressure while increasing the pressure below would cause the elevator to go up. Similar to the way hydrolics work, except here you're using air pressure rather than water pressure. If there was a sudden loss in pressure below such that it dropped below the above pressure, the elevator would move down. If it was sudden and dramatic.... the elevator would move downward suddenly and dramatically.
Wow, reading back now I'm not sure if that is going to make it any more clear.:P
There's a difference between agreeing with someone and just plain being wrong.
It's not a matter of being afraid, it's a matter of why do we have to continually beat an extinct species of horse over something that has been time and again previously settled?
ID can certainly have its day in the scientific spotlight as soon as it formulates a scientific hypothesis. If you want to be included within the framework of science, you have to play by those rules. The scientific method was developed because it is the most logical objective course of explanation for the universe, not just because someone thought it was a good idea.
I don't support freedom to force your ignorance on the rest of the public, no. I have the utmost respect for your "personal freedoms", but the keyword there is personal, not public, as in public school. Keep your faith in the church and out of the public classroom. If you have something scientific to offer up, please, show us. You'll become famous for it.
I don't need your god to bless me or keep me safe, I can do that on my own, tyvm.
Slashdot Mirror
Your analogies don't follow either. If you don't pay those workers, then you either you have no results of that service or you have to do the work yourself. So if you don't pay the musicians and artists, by your analogy you will either have no music or go about creating that art and music yourself, right?
If you're so annoyed by the other people in the theater, then do something about it: alert the theater managers, get them to do something about those people, or just patron another theater instead, and make your concerns vocal. Otherwise, nothing will be done and those theaters will continue to suck.
Why??? I have made many cd and dvds (yes with my own content) and it didn't cost me thousands of dollars. If its costing you that much to make a cd then I think you are doing something wrong.
I'd like to hear the content you've created and put on your CDs and DVDs, and I'm not talking about your home videos of you and your kids. You've created something that millions of people want to enjoy, using professional equipment (which by itself can easily cost a lot of money, hell, just your computer could be $1000 for a mid-line system), and distributed it across the country to millions of people, and all for under $1000?! Man, I wanna see that. Please post up some examples of your work. Better yet, post up the complete collection of your work. Not everyone wants to listen to nothing but amature-created music of slapped together pre-recorded loops in Garageband or a warez Sonar or Logic.
It you as a movie maker don't want to send your films directly to their homes... you can go do something else. If writting books ain't paying your bills find somethink that will. Do not complain to me and try to change my life to fit your desires.
Will you complain when you no longer have movies or books or music to enjoy? If those people are finding something else to pay the bills with, it means that they aren't producing the content that you think you have the right to consume for free. Do not take my work, which cost me time and money to produce, and fail to compensate me what I feel I'm owed for MY content and complain to me because it fits your desires.
And here we reach the crux, You can't have it both way. Either it cost a lot and is hard to get or its easy to get and costs very little.
Yes I can. It's my content, not yours. I can offer it for whatever I want. I may not sell much of it at a certain price, but that's my right to choose, not yours. The laws of supply and demand are consequences of a free market, not strict rules or moral obligations.
Except that physical laws do not apply here. What cost there is in copying the 1 and 0 is so spread out and marginalized as to be not existant and not is certainly no longer a burden on the producer. Yet that producers is still tring to profit from their old distribution model.
I believe here is the crux of your confusion. You equate producer to distributor. Cost of distribution may be lower, but cost of production does not go down because of that. Trying to interchange producer with distributor was consistant throughout your post, and it is just plain wrong.
Ok, so maybe I should've read a little further down before I posted. Mod me Redundant. :)
Ahhh, groupthink.
There were no "content producers" for most of human history, yet people made music, works of art, and so on. It will be different, neither better nor worse, if the world returns to a state where people are not paid for making digital recordings.
Actually, I think I would have to nitpick that a bit. Do you mean human history overall or just music or art history in particular? If you look at the history of music, the earliest music was produced in the church, for the church by monks that did nothing but that. A little farther along, when you got into composers who actually composed for a living, many of them were commissioned either by the church or patrons. Some composers were even housed by their patrons who provided them with housing, food, clothes, basically everything they needed to live so that they could spend all their time composing instead of having to make a living and leaving little precious time left for making music.
Try being a patron of the arts and pay your little share if you enjoy it so much. The artists will appreciate it much more if they're getting a little slice than none at all. It really isn't your business if "the artists hardly get anything anyway!" That's between the artists and the company. If the artist has a problem with it, they'll deal with it. Of course, that doesn't apply to the indy artist who doesn't have the marketing and distributing power of a multi-billion dollar industry behind them, and they are the noted exception.
"I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Dave."
Boy would that be wasted here...
Would you tell that to the guy that raped, beat, and then killed your 14 year old daughter? I find it hard to consider "human" someone who would be capable of such atrocity and, in turn, difficulty in my feelings of sympathy and attribution of human rights. When you know that those conditions could be the consequences for your actions, it should be a pretty simple choice: don't break the law if you don't like the consequences. Otherwise, this is where you go. The monster you might have sympathy for "no matter what they did" probably wouldn't have the same regard for the life of your or your loved ones.
Granted I'm a little kooky because I believe that murder should be legal so that it would deter crime, but I'm way in the minority with that belief.
I believe you are, because under certain circumstances, it is legal to use deadly force to protect yourself or your property from an attacker. I guess it depends on what you define as "murder".
Ironically, bars and restaurants are for some reason still legal to server(sic) alcohol even though you are not allowed to leave the place nor stay there.
I don't quite understand what you mean here. Why aren't you allowed to leave a place? Do you mean you aren't allowed to "drive" away? I also don't quite understand about it being ironic about it still being legal for bars and resturants to serve alcohol, then follow it up with a quote about prohibition. Am I missing something here?
How do you propose to make "only" the music downloaders pay the tax? If someone is already downloading music for free (both financially and consequentially), would they opt to sign up for Yahoo's (or anyone else's) service or just continue doing what they're already doing?
If alcohol and tobacco were banned tomorrow, good riddence I say.
Parent is actually just a very subtle inclusion of the old "Hey, I'm a fish, you insensitive clod!" joke.
Time to stop wasting time with all this fancy markup and CSS stuff and start posting up "webpages" as nothing but content in a plain ole .txt file. :)
Easy, just take the same video and play it backwards.
Pssh. What a waste of time. Just turn on your inertial dampers.
I also find it interesting that you find natural methods of evolution (read: over long periods of time) to be deplorable and equate it somehow with suffereing, yet you advocate the immediate experimenting with genes in our population.
Hmmm, I'm thinking if the battery in your pacemaker or other implanted device failed, you'd have more to worry about than some long-term radiation damage.
Or he could be hunted down, shot, and all evidence to the algorithm destroyed or buried by the RSA. Foil hats to the ready, geeks!
I, for one, welcome our overlord-joke predicting overlord... the AC! And there you are! Welcome!
Yeah, all that computing power could be used on better things.... like posting on /. Or Quake 3. Or finishing Duke Nukem Forever! Don't they know there are hungry children all over the world! Won't someone please think of the children?!
For some, their lives are probably coming to an end...
Probably because people don't want to take 10 hours to get to their destination when 2 hours is worth the slightly increased risk factor.
Parent is candidate for one of the strangest, yet suitably fitting analogies of all time.
What an odd question from someone on /. to ask...
Wow, reading back now I'm not sure if that is going to make it any more clear. :P
A few links to the dinosaurs dying in a global flood, please? The only links I can find to anything positing that are Creationist websites.
It was a stretch, but close enough for /. :P
It's not a matter of being afraid, it's a matter of why do we have to continually beat an extinct species of horse over something that has been time and again previously settled?
ID can certainly have its day in the scientific spotlight as soon as it formulates a scientific hypothesis. If you want to be included within the framework of science, you have to play by those rules. The scientific method was developed because it is the most logical objective course of explanation for the universe, not just because someone thought it was a good idea.
I don't support freedom to force your ignorance on the rest of the public, no. I have the utmost respect for your "personal freedoms", but the keyword there is personal, not public, as in public school. Keep your faith in the church and out of the public classroom. If you have something scientific to offer up, please, show us. You'll become famous for it.
I don't need your god to bless me or keep me safe, I can do that on my own, tyvm.