The poster suggesting a lack of hunger in Brazil (i.e "There isn't any") haven't taken in account any empirical data whatsover. Take this little piece of info:
"approximately a quarter of Brazil's 170 million people live below the poverty line. To meet the immediate needs of everyone who goes hungry in the country, the government would have to provide emergency help to 11 million families, according to official estimates. At the same time, the effort must include long-term actions to enable the population to manage on its own, so that in the future every family is able to buy its own food."
Now I don't know about you, but that sounds like hunger to me. I suppose hunger isn't a problem here either. Head to Appalachia and look around. Our cash is spread about in a minority of the world's people, and Barlow is must trying to point out one way that some could be redirected. I suppose it's too much to ask that we dedicate some resources to world hunger. People are starving and dying in all sorts of places.
"and the politicians throwing stones, and its all too clear we're on our own, so the kids they dance and shake their bones, singing Ashes to Ashes, all fall down. Ashes to ashes all fall down" JPB
Complex problems have complex answers- more complex than IBM is going to answer quickly.
Deployment of open source software is one thing, success at doing so is another. Even for IBM, the challenge is daunting. The number of individuals that just don't get the "why" of open source is simply overwhelming.
There is too much hype surrounding Linux- we want the answer too fast. Windows dominates, and knocking it off its tower its no small task.
Only when there is a more facile solution than Windows will the tower be toppled. But topple it will.
Now, can we all imagine Howard Stern jumping through flaming hoops with joy?
But seriously, I don't think that this is exactly whay I would call good news. Powell was certainly an unqualified political appointee who did a fairly lousy job at effectively regulating the free speech issues of the FCC.
But stop and think- who the hell is going to get appointed to the position? In a society that seems to be waging cultural warfare on itself, the next chairman may be effective and completely opposed to intellectual freedom.
If Janet Jackson's boob (and I've seen a fair number and her's was aok) was a problem for the FCC under Powell, imagine if John Ashcroft (thank God this will not happen) ever got appointed. Do you think Bush will appoint a religious radical to the post?
50,000,000 million on an $800,000,000? Marvel actually made out fairly well- that's a bit over 6 gross points. There are only so many pieces of the pie to go around. Now, 10% of that is $5,000,000. That's what Stan is owed (if his contract calls for 10% of Marvel's gross profits.) Now, if Marvel has cooked the books, his numbers go down.
Then it gets potentially worse for pooe Stan. If Marvel (and I hope they didn't do this) signed for net they got screwed too.
You would also be amazed by the accounting practices that the studios use to fracture profit.
My personal favorite? Include promotion in your gross costs to make the film. Of course, you must pay for promotion. Who does the promotion? The inhouse promotion department that bills the film budget, thereby knocking down the take while actually banking the profit. They do it all the time.
It all depends on what exactly he signed for- net poitns or gross points. If he signed for a percentage of the net, he is absolutely screwed. Films don't often make net profits. You're right- Hollywood accounting is remarkable. Remeber the story of Art Buchwald- he got 2 net points on "Coming to America," won his case, and saw nothing.
If you ever, ever, sign for anything, sign for gross points. 10% of a $250,000,000 then is $25,000,000. Much better numbers.
"Copyright has not always existed, and it may now h
have outlived its value to humanity as a whole."
Outlived it's value to humanity as a whole? Can you truthfully assert that once someone creates something it belongs to the world as a whole?
I never cease to be amazed at those who think that simply because something exists, it's their right to make their own copy of the thing.
And furthermore, are the operators really altruistic in their actions? Please, give me examples....
Peer to peer is legal when you share material in the public domain. Go to archive.org and reap the benefits of material that has entered the public domain.
We can kvetch all we want about EULAs, but the big question here revolves around ethics.
On the most basic level, I think we all perceive that just compensation for work is wholly reasonable.
Yes, I've used software that I didn't have legal right to, but I understood that it isn't really kosher.
The only person capable of stopping anyone from doing anything is the individual- to my mind, EULAs are general reminders that make you consider the nature of what you are doing in the first place.
Try this....implant to f*cking computer into your chest and try to convince them that you haven't had a bomb implanted. "That card could be forged sir!" "Why don't you just induce ventricular fibrillation and my heart and watch my whole body jump like its been kicked by a mule! Will that do it?"
Defibrillators are really fun.
Any question why a guy with scads of frequent flyer miles doesn't leave the state in anything that goes up in the air anymore?
It wasn't a comment on NASA's management- merely that the funding for NASA certainly hasn't made it simple for adequate equipment repair and replacement.
They certainly didn't place the SRB on the orbiter and et mockup (which was used for flight on top of 747's if I remember properly) for storage. They didn't need it, then they did- why? Had to be lack of $$$ to put together more. At least, that was the story in the Huntsville papers when NASA grabbed it back.
Farmers do not collect their own seed generally- they harvest their corn, and repurchase seed every spring. That's the way it is done. There is no sense in harvesting corn for seed and it is rarely practiced. If you've got good corn you sell it at price It's cheaper and easier to go to the Coop and get more seed each spring.
The genetically engineered corn is actually the life blood of many farmers- yes even the small ones. They plant tracts of corn that are then observed for the quality of the corn. I lived in an area of TN that Monsanto and others used for testing- you've never sen more curious rows of corn.
Monsanto is engineering a seed that produces better product. The result is simple- a farmer sees that he can harvest the engineered corn and create his own seed for less than Monsanto charges for the engneered product. That would be the only reason to replat Monsanto seed- the last thing any farmer wants to do is more work than they have to, but if they can get Monsanto's branded seed for less, they will do so.
In addition, they can at that point actually sell seed that was engineered by Monsanto for their own profit. Monsanto actually engineers the seed to help the farmers bottom line- to make them more productive.
However, I do agree that suing the little guy in this is pointless. the big agriculture corporate farms would be the major players if "seed copying" ever became a huge problem.
Still, you've got to realize that the reseeding farmer is trying to save money by copying superior product. Call it the genetic equivalent of P2P or whatever you like, but trying to use superior seed to grow it to avoid paying- that's not quite kosher.
The farmers would be motivated though because in this day and age, family farming is nearly an impossible adventure- the cost are astronomical and the payoff risky as hell.
Pre-Market (RT-ECN): 74.07 Up 8.61 (13.15%)
Last Trade: 65.46
Trade Time: Jan 12
Change: 0.00 (0.00%)
Prev Close: 65.46
Open: N/A
Bid: 73.56 x 200
Ask: 67.00 x 100
1y Target Est: 68.28
Day's Range: N/A - N/A
52wk Range: 21.70 - 70.70
Volume: 719,122
Avg Vol (3m): 15,328,636
Market Cap: 26.32B
P/E (ttm): 52.62
EPS (ttm): 1.244
Div & Yield: N/A (N/A)
1. Stock sure looks like it's doing fine (projected 13% gain doesn't suck)
2. Sorry, but he is a kid. Legality has nothing to do with the wosdom that comes with age. Think back to when you were 19- ever do anything that seems, in retrospect, foolish?
3. Much ado about nothing
Here's the thing- if Apple was hurt in any way shape or form by his actions they might have a little bit of a case. However, all this kid did was get information and go with it. Frankly, that takes some balls.
His entire story has only helped Apple by aiding them in building the hype for Macworld. All a judge could possibly do is ask the kid to reveal his source and then find him incontempt if he didn't. Even then, Apple would have to show damage. And there are no damages here. ThinkSecret wins, Apple wins....this story will go away.
"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" Shakespeare
I cannot believe that we are all so disgusting as to make a mockery of these women whose only crime is to be.....oh come on what am I saying....
Fat out winner. Darlene Cates. What's Eating Gilbert Grape.
As I once lived about 30 miles from Hunstville, my family had memberships to the museum and made frequent trips. The exhibits are extraordinary, but a simple fac`t jumped out at me late in my time in the area.
In addition to the Saturn V's (which still capture my imagination) a Space Shuttle from the early days was on site (not space worthy.) At the time, NASA was so underfunded that they actually took away parts of (and perhaps the entire) booster rocket from the shuttle exhibit. It seems that NASA had just plain run out of money and needed the damn thing.
If we are forced to put display items back into service, just what does that say about our space program? In retrospect, climbing on the Columbia was sheer insanity. This was an accident waiting to happen.
Problem is, the market of the book was quite specifically schools who used the book as giveaways to the kids. In this case, it would have been giving away the chapter that they specifically wanted for a specific use.
This argument is akin to my copying an excerpt from a Steinbeck piece to give to creative writing students to illustrate a point. Steinbeck gets compensation- even from anthologies.
Academics are notorious for bending the copyright laws any way they can. Universities should give courses in efficient use of the Xerox machine to anyone who contemplates ending up an educator.
In the case of the book project I was involved with, the entire book needed to be in the hands of the kids- not a specific chapter that was picked by the administrator for a reason. Taken out of context, a part of a piece can lose its meaning altogether.
And you missed a situation where they absolutely have to read your work.
No- they would have read part- a part specific to their time and place in life. If I were looking to sell to the same audience further down the road, things would be different.
Moreover, once you give away one piece, you have to do it whenever someone asks, and that just can't be done. I am not averse to sharing work, but when someone else uses it for their financial gain, I'm a totally opposed. Read from it- quote it- attribute it, but don't pass it around as if you own it UNLESS that is an implicit part of your selling structure.
Gleefully give your work away if you wish. And while I don't harbor the feelings toward people that you have assumed, I am a bit cynical when it comes to business of pubishing. If you've been there, you know that editors, publishers, buyers (and the paying public) are all interested in getting your work for as small a price as possible. That's human nature. In addition, it's the exact reason that I did a lot of marketing through my own channels, bought stock from the publisher, and did my own distribution. That way, I got to charge less than full price, get royalty payments, and do sell throughs. That ended up meaning a second printing and second edition.
Oh, and I don't care if they read it after I'm dead. I certainly won't be around to appreciate that....:)
In the case of my pubisher, I would have absolutely seen payment. My contracts are always for gross points. If it sells, I see 15% of whatever they get (except when they sell at a discount rate, at which point I get 15% of the discounted price.
The artists do get hurt by copyright infringement. As a coder, I imagine that (although I cannot say concretely) you are compensated an on contract basis for your work. If the coding you do is part of a project, then your employer makes the profit after you have already been paid.
In the case of musicians, writers, actors, directors and the like, there is upfront compensation, but also payment in the form of residuals. As a writer, my residuals are in the form of royalties (someitmes 3.50 a check). If I sell my work outright to someone, they can do with it what they like- they own the copyright. I've bought back one.
However, each book contract I have signed includes residuals- continuing payment for each copy of the book that sells. It may not be much, but it is something. Collect enough residuals, and you can actually eke out an honest living.
On the front end, filesharing helps struggling artists- it gets their work out there. Musicians play gigs free for the sake of audience building, but all long for a contract that will pay them cahs plus residuals. I am mananging a band now that is all about sharing the music- now. Later, their money will come form recording and merch.
The actor, director, writer- they do not receive any benefit from trading copyrighted files. They only profit from continued sales (and airplay, etc.)
Clubs must pay a licensing fee to ASCAP for the use of copyrighted materials by the artists who play there. No fee, and you can't play Long Tall Sally.
The RIAA is an association that supports an industry, not the artists. On the other hand, the other signatries (AFTRA and SAG to name two) provide valuable services for their members, not the least of which is health insurance and legal support when fighting unethical producers.
Whether you agree or not, there are two sides to this issue. The RIAA fines people and pays money to the record companies and themselves. They do not pay that money to artists they still have to go on what they have contracted for. If sales go down, they get less money. It really is that simple.
It doesn't effect the big acts, but it makes it a pain in the ass for smaller bands to get signed and get strong industry support. That's also a fact.
And in terms of stepping on toes, you cannot tell me that I am perpetuating a lie when I have actually experienced the direct effect of copyright violation. It ran me in the thousands of dollars of lost sales, and my publishing house doesn't have the revenue to go after the violaters.
If that is a lie, then I am a flat out liar in every sense of the word, and my toes aren't stepped on a bit.
Artists starve looking for the hit that will carry them through to financial success.
And a simple question back- is it justifiable in any way for someone to take a copyrighted work and distribute it without compensation to the individuals that made it? If so, please ship me the next complete program that you've worked on and I'll freely distribute it- that would be fair would it not?
...than this simple court decision. Rightfuly so, the court said that Charter is under no obligation to reveal information about "alleged" subscribers. That's not necessarily the best news in the world. Yes, the RIAA cannot go after just anybody, but if they can prove in a court that someone is actually distributing copyrighted material, it should be another story.
I've little time for the RIAA and they way that they function, but the others who signed on represent a number of creative people that I work with. I am still troubled by the amount of copyright infringement that goes on in the world.
It's one thing when you are getting material, it's another altogether when your material is used without permission. On one occasion, I had a school ask if they could make 500 copies of one chapter in a book I wrote for distributiuon to their students. They had no desire, or intent, to compensate me for my work.
The artists are the ones who get screwed in this- they deserve just compensation for their work and should be given such. When you can't pay the bills with your craft, you change to another craft. How many decent artists does that deny us the pleasure of seeing or hearing?
It's always about the money, but in the case of a number of industries, it's about keeping the money coming in for those who did the work. I've paid a bar tab with a royalty check- and I needed the drink. How many of us will pay the tab for artists?
Actually, experience tells me otherwise. When I was writing in the tech industry, I needed to get my hands on a specific piece of software and went to the head of a testing lab. He nicely directed me to an IRC channel where I could find the package.
He revealed that he had his hands on the product well in advance of any PR releases. Yes, they know whose hands they want to get something into and will provide. I had advance copies of a number of films that way (it was always fun to be able to scoop on a review.)
The big kahuna though was always working with the top secret product when it was still in the hands of the non-disclosure agreement people. I signed enough of those as well.
The instant it is in those hands though, the risk of it getting into the mainstream is there. Yes, they are often buggy alpha versions, but you know that, and you do not talk about what you know. You just prepare for what's about to happen.
If Apple is truly releasing a headless iMac, somebody in the chain leaked it. Happens every day.
Actually, in some cases the entire car is covered with a sticker completely covering the original paint job....it's how they do fully different paint schemes from race to race....I've watched as they pull the entire covering off hoods and fenders. It also helps them avoid the repaint job in some cases. They simply can't do it over and over.
Ever notice how Nextel Cup cars sport different paint jobs from week to week? These aren't paint jobs- they are whole car sticker jobs. We could be changing design schemes on our cars from week to week if we had the bread to do it. Pull on off, paste another on.
Slashdot Mirror
The poster suggesting a lack of hunger in Brazil (i.e "There isn't any") haven't taken in account any empirical data whatsover. Take this little piece of info:
"approximately a quarter of Brazil's 170 million people live below the poverty line. To meet the immediate needs of everyone who goes hungry in the country, the government would have to provide emergency help to 11 million families, according to official estimates. At the same time, the effort must include long-term actions to enable the population to manage on its own, so that in the future every family is able to buy its own food."
Now I don't know about you, but that sounds like hunger to me. I suppose hunger isn't a problem here either. Head to Appalachia and look around. Our cash is spread about in a minority of the world's people, and Barlow is must trying to point out one way that some could be redirected. I suppose it's too much to ask that we dedicate some resources to world hunger. People are starving and dying in all sorts of places.
"and the politicians throwing stones, and its all too clear we're on our own, so the kids they dance and shake their bones, singing Ashes to Ashes, all fall down. Ashes to ashes all fall down" JPB
Complex problems have complex answers- more complex than IBM is going to answer quickly.
Deployment of open source software is one thing, success at doing so is another. Even for IBM, the challenge is daunting. The number of individuals that just don't get the "why" of open source is simply overwhelming.
There is too much hype surrounding Linux- we want the answer too fast. Windows dominates, and knocking it off its tower its no small task.
Only when there is a more facile solution than Windows will the tower be toppled. But topple it will.
Now, can we all imagine Howard Stern jumping through flaming hoops with joy?
But seriously, I don't think that this is exactly whay I would call good news. Powell was certainly an unqualified political appointee who did a fairly lousy job at effectively regulating the free speech issues of the FCC.
But stop and think- who the hell is going to get appointed to the position? In a society that seems to be waging cultural warfare on itself, the next chairman may be effective and completely opposed to intellectual freedom.
If Janet Jackson's boob (and I've seen a fair number and her's was aok) was a problem for the FCC under Powell, imagine if John Ashcroft (thank God this will not happen) ever got appointed. Do you think Bush will appoint a religious radical to the post?
I shiver in fear.
50,000,000 million on an $800,000,000? Marvel actually made out fairly well- that's a bit over 6 gross points. There are only so many pieces of the pie to go around. Now, 10% of that is $5,000,000. That's what Stan is owed (if his contract calls for 10% of Marvel's gross profits.) Now, if Marvel has cooked the books, his numbers go down.
Don't you love the entertainment business?
Then it gets potentially worse for pooe Stan. If Marvel (and I hope they didn't do this) signed for net they got screwed too.
You would also be amazed by the accounting practices that the studios use to fracture profit.
My personal favorite? Include promotion in your gross costs to make the film. Of course, you must pay for promotion. Who does the promotion? The inhouse promotion department that bills the film budget, thereby knocking down the take while actually banking the profit. They do it all the time.
It all depends on what exactly he signed for- net poitns or gross points. If he signed for a percentage of the net, he is absolutely screwed. Films don't often make net profits. You're right- Hollywood accounting is remarkable. Remeber the story of Art Buchwald- he got 2 net points on "Coming to America," won his case, and saw nothing.
If you ever, ever, sign for anything, sign for gross points. 10% of a $250,000,000 then is $25,000,000. Much better numbers.
"Copyright has not always existed, and it may now h have outlived its value to humanity as a whole."
Outlived it's value to humanity as a whole? Can you truthfully assert that once someone creates something it belongs to the world as a whole?
I never cease to be amazed at those who think that simply because something exists, it's their right to make their own copy of the thing.
And furthermore, are the operators really altruistic in their actions? Please, give me examples....
Peer to peer is legal when you share material in the public domain. Go to archive.org and reap the benefits of material that has entered the public domain.
We can kvetch all we want about EULAs, but the big question here revolves around ethics.
On the most basic level, I think we all perceive that just compensation for work is wholly reasonable.
Yes, I've used software that I didn't have legal right to, but I understood that it isn't really kosher.
The only person capable of stopping anyone from doing anything is the individual- to my mind, EULAs are general reminders that make you consider the nature of what you are doing in the first place.
Try this....implant to f*cking computer into your chest and try to convince them that you haven't had a bomb implanted. "That card could be forged sir!" "Why don't you just induce ventricular fibrillation and my heart and watch my whole body jump like its been kicked by a mule! Will that do it?"
Defibrillators are really fun.
Any question why a guy with scads of frequent flyer miles doesn't leave the state in anything that goes up in the air anymore?
It wasn't a comment on NASA's management- merely that the funding for NASA certainly hasn't made it simple for adequate equipment repair and replacement.
They certainly didn't place the SRB on the orbiter and et mockup (which was used for flight on top of 747's if I remember properly) for storage. They didn't need it, then they did- why? Had to be lack of $$$ to put together more. At least, that was the story in the Huntsville papers when NASA grabbed it back.
This is actually a fairly complex deal.
Farmers do not collect their own seed generally- they harvest their corn, and repurchase seed every spring. That's the way it is done. There is no sense in harvesting corn for seed and it is rarely practiced. If you've got good corn you sell it at price It's cheaper and easier to go to the Coop and get more seed each spring.
The genetically engineered corn is actually the life blood of many farmers- yes even the small ones. They plant tracts of corn that are then observed for the quality of the corn. I lived in an area of TN that Monsanto and others used for testing- you've never sen more curious rows of corn.
Monsanto is engineering a seed that produces better product. The result is simple- a farmer sees that he can harvest the engineered corn and create his own seed for less than Monsanto charges for the engneered product. That would be the only reason to replat Monsanto seed- the last thing any farmer wants to do is more work than they have to, but if they can get Monsanto's branded seed for less, they will do so.
In addition, they can at that point actually sell seed that was engineered by Monsanto for their own profit. Monsanto actually engineers the seed to help the farmers bottom line- to make them more productive.
However, I do agree that suing the little guy in this is pointless. the big agriculture corporate farms would be the major players if "seed copying" ever became a huge problem.
Still, you've got to realize that the reseeding farmer is trying to save money by copying superior product. Call it the genetic equivalent of P2P or whatever you like, but trying to use superior seed to grow it to avoid paying- that's not quite kosher.
The farmers would be motivated though because in this day and age, family farming is nearly an impossible adventure- the cost are astronomical and the payoff risky as hell.
Yeah, but if he's white he'll be fine.
" Until they pass a law that makes it completely legal to kill spammers, the spam problem will not go away."
Ah no- that would only make it worse= the ones left alive would know that you were still there to annoy.
Pre-Market (RT-ECN): 74.07 Up 8.61 (13.15%)
Last Trade: 65.46
Trade Time: Jan 12
Change: 0.00 (0.00%) Prev Close: 65.46
Open: N/A
Bid: 73.56 x 200
Ask: 67.00 x 100
1y Target Est: 68.28
Day's Range: N/A - N/A
52wk Range: 21.70 - 70.70
Volume: 719,122
Avg Vol (3m): 15,328,636
Market Cap: 26.32B
P/E (ttm): 52.62
EPS (ttm): 1.244
Div & Yield: N/A (N/A)
1. Stock sure looks like it's doing fine (projected 13% gain doesn't suck)
2. Sorry, but he is a kid. Legality has nothing to do with the wosdom that comes with age. Think back to when you were 19- ever do anything that seems, in retrospect, foolish?
3. Much ado about nothing
Trying to nail a kid for divulging trade secrets?
Here's the thing- if Apple was hurt in any way shape or form by his actions they might have a little bit of a case. However, all this kid did was get information and go with it. Frankly, that takes some balls.
His entire story has only helped Apple by aiding them in building the hype for Macworld. All a judge could possibly do is ask the kid to reveal his source and then find him incontempt if he didn't. Even then, Apple would have to show damage. And there are no damages here. ThinkSecret wins, Apple wins....this story will go away.
"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"
Shakespeare
I cannot believe that we are all so disgusting as to make a mockery of these women whose only crime is to be.....oh come on what am I saying....
Fat out winner. Darlene Cates. What's Eating Gilbert Grape.
As I once lived about 30 miles from Hunstville, my family had memberships to the museum and made frequent trips. The exhibits are extraordinary, but a simple fac`t jumped out at me late in my time in the area.
In addition to the Saturn V's (which still capture my imagination) a Space Shuttle from the early days was on site (not space worthy.) At the time, NASA was so underfunded that they actually took away parts of (and perhaps the entire) booster rocket from the shuttle exhibit. It seems that NASA had just plain run out of money and needed the damn thing.
If we are forced to put display items back into service, just what does that say about our space program? In retrospect, climbing on the Columbia was sheer insanity. This was an accident waiting to happen.
Problem is, the market of the book was quite specifically schools who used the book as giveaways to the kids. In this case, it would have been giving away the chapter that they specifically wanted for a specific use.
This argument is akin to my copying an excerpt from a Steinbeck piece to give to creative writing students to illustrate a point. Steinbeck gets compensation- even from anthologies.
Academics are notorious for bending the copyright laws any way they can. Universities should give courses in efficient use of the Xerox machine to anyone who contemplates ending up an educator.
In the case of the book project I was involved with, the entire book needed to be in the hands of the kids- not a specific chapter that was picked by the administrator for a reason. Taken out of context, a part of a piece can lose its meaning altogether.
And you missed a situation where they absolutely have to read your work.
No- they would have read part- a part specific to their time and place in life. If I were looking to sell to the same audience further down the road, things would be different.
Moreover, once you give away one piece, you have to do it whenever someone asks, and that just can't be done. I am not averse to sharing work, but when someone else uses it for their financial gain, I'm a totally opposed. Read from it- quote it- attribute it, but don't pass it around as if you own it UNLESS that is an implicit part of your selling structure.
Gleefully give your work away if you wish. And while I don't harbor the feelings toward people that you have assumed, I am a bit cynical when it comes to business of pubishing. If you've been there, you know that editors, publishers, buyers (and the paying public) are all interested in getting your work for as small a price as possible. That's human nature. In addition, it's the exact reason that I did a lot of marketing through my own channels, bought stock from the publisher, and did my own distribution. That way, I got to charge less than full price, get royalty payments, and do sell throughs. That ended up meaning a second printing and second edition.
Oh, and I don't care if they read it after I'm dead. I certainly won't be around to appreciate that....:)
In the case of my pubisher, I would have absolutely seen payment. My contracts are always for gross points. If it sells, I see 15% of whatever they get (except when they sell at a discount rate, at which point I get 15% of the discounted price.
Welcome to a flat out disagreement.
The artists do get hurt by copyright infringement. As a coder, I imagine that (although I cannot say concretely) you are compensated an on contract basis for your work. If the coding you do is part of a project, then your employer makes the profit after you have already been paid.
In the case of musicians, writers, actors, directors and the like, there is upfront compensation, but also payment in the form of residuals. As a writer, my residuals are in the form of royalties (someitmes 3.50 a check). If I sell my work outright to someone, they can do with it what they like- they own the copyright. I've bought back one.
However, each book contract I have signed includes residuals- continuing payment for each copy of the book that sells. It may not be much, but it is something. Collect enough residuals, and you can actually eke out an honest living.
On the front end, filesharing helps struggling artists- it gets their work out there. Musicians play gigs free for the sake of audience building, but all long for a contract that will pay them cahs plus residuals. I am mananging a band now that is all about sharing the music- now. Later, their money will come form recording and merch.
The actor, director, writer- they do not receive any benefit from trading copyrighted files. They only profit from continued sales (and airplay, etc.)
Clubs must pay a licensing fee to ASCAP for the use of copyrighted materials by the artists who play there. No fee, and you can't play Long Tall Sally.
The RIAA is an association that supports an industry, not the artists. On the other hand, the other signatries (AFTRA and SAG to name two) provide valuable services for their members, not the least of which is health insurance and legal support when fighting unethical producers.
Whether you agree or not, there are two sides to this issue. The RIAA fines people and pays money to the record companies and themselves. They do not pay that money to artists they still have to go on what they have contracted for. If sales go down, they get less money. It really is that simple.
It doesn't effect the big acts, but it makes it a pain in the ass for smaller bands to get signed and get strong industry support. That's also a fact.
And in terms of stepping on toes, you cannot tell me that I am perpetuating a lie when I have actually experienced the direct effect of copyright violation. It ran me in the thousands of dollars of lost sales, and my publishing house doesn't have the revenue to go after the violaters.
If that is a lie, then I am a flat out liar in every sense of the word, and my toes aren't stepped on a bit.
Artists starve looking for the hit that will carry them through to financial success.
And a simple question back- is it justifiable in any way for someone to take a copyrighted work and distribute it without compensation to the individuals that made it? If so, please ship me the next complete program that you've worked on and I'll freely distribute it- that would be fair would it not?
...than this simple court decision. Rightfuly so, the court said that Charter is under no obligation to reveal information about "alleged" subscribers. That's not necessarily the best news in the world. Yes, the RIAA cannot go after just anybody, but if they can prove in a court that someone is actually distributing copyrighted material, it should be another story.
I've little time for the RIAA and they way that they function, but the others who signed on represent a number of creative people that I work with. I am still troubled by the amount of copyright infringement that goes on in the world.
It's one thing when you are getting material, it's another altogether when your material is used without permission. On one occasion, I had a school ask if they could make 500 copies of one chapter in a book I wrote for distributiuon to their students. They had no desire, or intent, to compensate me for my work.
The artists are the ones who get screwed in this- they deserve just compensation for their work and should be given such. When you can't pay the bills with your craft, you change to another craft. How many decent artists does that deny us the pleasure of seeing or hearing?
It's always about the money, but in the case of a number of industries, it's about keeping the money coming in for those who did the work. I've paid a bar tab with a royalty check- and I needed the drink. How many of us will pay the tab for artists?
Actually, experience tells me otherwise. When I was writing in the tech industry, I needed to get my hands on a specific piece of software and went to the head of a testing lab. He nicely directed me to an IRC channel where I could find the package.
He revealed that he had his hands on the product well in advance of any PR releases. Yes, they know whose hands they want to get something into and will provide. I had advance copies of a number of films that way (it was always fun to be able to scoop on a review.)
The big kahuna though was always working with the top secret product when it was still in the hands of the non-disclosure agreement people. I signed enough of those as well.
The instant it is in those hands though, the risk of it getting into the mainstream is there. Yes, they are often buggy alpha versions, but you know that, and you do not talk about what you know. You just prepare for what's about to happen.
If Apple is truly releasing a headless iMac, somebody in the chain leaked it. Happens every day.
Actually, in some cases the entire car is covered with a sticker completely covering the original paint job....it's how they do fully different paint schemes from race to race....I've watched as they pull the entire covering off hoods and fenders. It also helps them avoid the repaint job in some cases. They simply can't do it over and over.
1. How come we always try to do the most far-fetched shit humanly possible. It's a ball of ice people.
2. Is this a velied anti-semetic attack? (take some time with it....now you've got it)
3. Didn't Mercury stop making Comets? This has got to be too valuable to blow a crater in.
Ever notice how Nextel Cup cars sport different paint jobs from week to week? These aren't paint jobs- they are whole car sticker jobs. We could be changing design schemes on our cars from week to week if we had the bread to do it. Pull on off, paste another on.