Still therein you are mentioning a case of intentional broadcasting, which a file traded on P2P is not an intentional broadcast in any sense.
While a lending library is a legal way to listen, read and watch for free...there is a physical management of the media in question that greatly limits the damage done to the property in the marketplace. If content is to be spread virally outside of the controlled intended distribution, then the value of the property in the paid marketplace is essentially zero.
I don't disagree with you entirely, I'm simply pointing out that the original content creators will still probably never see a dime from this tax revenue. There are no royaltees tracked for specific content in this business model, so there is no reward given to the creative force behind the content.
The content creators lose out any way you look at it.
There hasn't been a record company monopoly for close to 10 years now, that's obvious, but the fact is that the majority of recording artists don't want to be managing a business in addition to being content creators. There are a number of independent artists that have successfully started and managed a recording company dedicated to producing and distributing their music, but still there has not been a mass exodus from the major labels. Why? Three things...music videos, radio airplay and tour support.
While the first two are a definite monopoly de jure, tour support is one of the most vital aspects of a large recording contract for the majority of pop artists.
A single, manageable, physical copy of media is quite different from an unlimited, unmanaged,un-legal copy of electronic media. P2P isn't a legit lending library any more then your local Best Buy is.
So as long as a payment is going to someone, the moral slate is wiped clean? What does a media tax have to do with the original content creator, who seems to be entirely exempted from this equation in spite of the fact that they've generated something worthy of stealing?
Is it a serious alternative for the majority of businesses? Not at all. It has nothing to do with the viability of the underlying code or any submission process...it's a matter of the legacy programs that are built into the culture of a business. However, while it may not be a viable OS for an entrenched corperate operation, there are probably a number individual users like myself who might be willing to beta test their home systems on Linux and see what the other side has to offer.
I've got to say that as a dumb windoze user, I paid a lot more attention to the developments in the linux community once I learned of the SCO lawsuits. I'm still sitting in a windows environment, but after being enthralled with the underdog publicity generated by the legal manuverings, I'm taking alternate operating systems a lot more seriously.
Everything I'm reading in this story indicates that the decisions on the applicants was already made, yes? So what exactly is unethical about looking at a decision that has been finalized, but not disseminated? I can't see any way that this information could be used to anyone's advantage other then perhaps to adjust one's collegiate outlook.
I think it would certainly be unethical if a person were able to use this information to their advantage in the process of getting admitted to the school, but the fact is that this information is (supposedly) telling people they are in or out.
Why isn't anyone questioning the ethics of Harvard in this case? Why would a school delay informing it's applicants of their fate when it is obvious that the decisions have already been made?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still looking for the Steve Allen Pog.
Still therein you are mentioning a case of intentional broadcasting, which a file traded on P2P is not an intentional broadcast in any sense. While a lending library is a legal way to listen, read and watch for free...there is a physical management of the media in question that greatly limits the damage done to the property in the marketplace. If content is to be spread virally outside of the controlled intended distribution, then the value of the property in the paid marketplace is essentially zero.
I don't disagree with you entirely, I'm simply pointing out that the original content creators will still probably never see a dime from this tax revenue. There are no royaltees tracked for specific content in this business model, so there is no reward given to the creative force behind the content. The content creators lose out any way you look at it.
There hasn't been a record company monopoly for close to 10 years now, that's obvious, but the fact is that the majority of recording artists don't want to be managing a business in addition to being content creators. There are a number of independent artists that have successfully started and managed a recording company dedicated to producing and distributing their music, but still there has not been a mass exodus from the major labels. Why? Three things...music videos, radio airplay and tour support.
While the first two are a definite monopoly de jure, tour support is one of the most vital aspects of a large recording contract for the majority of pop artists.
A single, manageable, physical copy of media is quite different from an unlimited, unmanaged,un-legal copy of electronic media. P2P isn't a legit lending library any more then your local Best Buy is.
So as long as a payment is going to someone, the moral slate is wiped clean? What does a media tax have to do with the original content creator, who seems to be entirely exempted from this equation in spite of the fact that they've generated something worthy of stealing?
And here all this time I was thinking my computer is a piece of shit because it's a pentium II 333MHz PC with 64megs of ram running Windows 98...
but NO...it's the P2P programs!
Is it a serious alternative for the majority of businesses? Not at all. It has nothing to do with the viability of the underlying code or any submission process...it's a matter of the legacy programs that are built into the culture of a business. However, while it may not be a viable OS for an entrenched corperate operation, there are probably a number individual users like myself who might be willing to beta test their home systems on Linux and see what the other side has to offer.
I've got to say that as a dumb windoze user, I paid a lot more attention to the developments in the linux community once I learned of the SCO lawsuits. I'm still sitting in a windows environment, but after being enthralled with the underdog publicity generated by the legal manuverings, I'm taking alternate operating systems a lot more seriously.
Everything I'm reading in this story indicates that the decisions on the applicants was already made, yes? So what exactly is unethical about looking at a decision that has been finalized, but not disseminated? I can't see any way that this information could be used to anyone's advantage other then perhaps to adjust one's collegiate outlook. I think it would certainly be unethical if a person were able to use this information to their advantage in the process of getting admitted to the school, but the fact is that this information is (supposedly) telling people they are in or out. Why isn't anyone questioning the ethics of Harvard in this case? Why would a school delay informing it's applicants of their fate when it is obvious that the decisions have already been made?