Since when did that ever matter? All those out there today that produce intellectual property never see the benefits, or even own it, instead it is owned by some company who takes all of the profits. Scientists and Engineers that should be filthy rich from amazing inventions might be getting paid 50k a year while the stockholders of their company walk away with all of the money that they earned.
There is nothing in copyright that says "You had to create this in order to own it".
It's not an easy point to understand because it's about power not profits.
It's about both. They want power so they can make profits.
Thats their way of expressing dominance. It's not entirely about profits, because if it were they would take profits even at a loss of control which they don't and wont ever do.
What's wrong with them expressing dominance over their property? Are you saying no one should own anything?
They're allowed to take what profits they want and make what business deals they want. I think you're reading way too much into things.
They want to make money anytime someone watches Transformers 2, for example. That's it. They want legislation and DRM to make it as hard as possible for people to not pay them. They don't care about you. They don't care about your happiness. The just want cash every time someone watches their movie, listens to their song. It's really just that simple.
No ones saying they don't own the copyright. They have a right to profit from it. But thats not what they are trying to do. They are trying to control how we consume the product, how we listen to it, how we watch movies. They want to force us to watch movies on discs when we don't ask for or want discs. They want to force us to accept copying restrictions on music we purchased.
I'm not happy that when I buy music from Itunes that I cannot listen to it in Linux or on another computer. I paid for it so I should be able to do anything I want with it except sell it. This is the issue.
And copyright wasn't invented to make them a profit anytime someone listens to, watches or reads something. When people would buy books once you bought the book you owned it. If you copied the book and sold it then you are directly taking profits away from the copyright owner. Thats not what is at stake here. They want to profit whether or not you influence their profits or not. They want to intrude on your fair use. They want information control, not just profits.
I do agree 100% with the sentiment that even if the RIAA gets every law and every copy protection it can possibly dream up it won't make any more money than it's making now. People aren't going to put down their iPods and stop going to the cinema with their friends just so they can have another CD on their shelf.
I feel that if they managed to get the torrent sites shut down they'd see an increase in CD/itunes sales. People like music enough that they'll pay if they have to.
OTOH, like you said, the world would be a worse place if they did.
Movies? They almost all torrent and don't bother with theaters. I have so much trouble finding people to go to theaters with.
Video Games? 1/2 of them Torrent or do without, 1/2 of them torrent most PC and buy console (used if they can).
Concerts are more of a grab bag depending on whether or not they LIKE concerts but the ones that do will pay. But that doesn't really count because they literally cannot torrent a concert. Their only options are to pay or not get the concert. Which is really damning evidence to the "People will buy just as much" crowd because the only solid stream of revenue that shows in the one that they CAN'T pirate, implying that if you couldn't pirate the CDs you'd be much more likely to buy them.
If they couldn't pirate cds they wouldn't be any more likely to buy it. It's like asking someone who never buys music to suddenly start buying it. No what they'd do is borrow their friends CDs, trade CDs, but never buy them. Why buy CDs when you can borrow? Why buy DVDs when you can rent or borrow?
lawmakers and everyday people live in different worlds. what they refuse to understand is that if people can get something for free, they will get it for free. period.
another important issue is that it's very dangerous to try to forbid something that you can't actually stop. that's when you lose all authority.
offtopic: http://xkcd.com/137/ . we shouldn't be afraid to say the truth about what we want.
So profit off them getting something for free. Google proves it's possible and really easy.
You download an mp3 for free and each time you play it you hear a brief 10 second ad before it starts?
I would be ok with this kind of pricing model, like hulu and youtube, but the downside is that I have to listen or watch the same exact ad ten times in a row. I would be more ok with commercials or even more commercials if I only ever had to see the same ad once a day. I don't care if I see multiple ads for the same company as long as they are different each time.
If you want to listen to the song 10 times in a row maybe you should just buy the song? And of course the ad should be dynamic and targeted. If you listen to Snoop's gin and juice perhaps a liquor ad would make sense.
A brief 10-second ad before every time I try and play a song would be worse than paying $1.25 to never hear the ad. That shit would get old really, really quickly.
Not if you don't have a job. If you have a good job then it's worse but the entire world isn't going to agree with you on that. Also a lot of songs suck and aren't worth buying so you wont be listening to it more than a few times anyway.
That is a probable result as well but the reason that isn't happening is because they killed off mp3.com so now it's a lot harder to buy anything else. Once again that in my opinion was a deliberate operation on their behalf to retain control and not about profits. Mp3.com was no threat to their market but it allowed individuals like you and me to sell our music and make money without giving them their cut.
Only we don't need them to distribute for us anymore when we have Youtube and Itunes. They now are basically an information control cartel who profits based on their political connections alone. Most of the new musicians coming out aren't even real artists. They don't write their own music, they don't sing on stage, they can't dance, they can't play an instrument, the only thing they can do is look pretty and pretend to be an artist. This is the current system and it sucks.
Why don't we get to choose? Because we lost mp3.com which in my opinion had changed the game for the better and ended up with Itunes which accepted the information control cartel's influence.
I'm not saying the IP holders dont have a right to profit from the IP they own. But they already seem to be making billions in profits, why do they need ACTA? ACTA seems more like a control measure than a profit measure. And if it weren't about control why do they have to act shady and operate in complete secrecy? Usually when people operate in secrecy it's because they are conspiring to rule the world not benefit it.
As for the second part. What the fuck are you talking about? IP rights holders are incapable of controlling happiness. Can you restate your point please?
Not sure what the OP meant by this exactly, but:
You need to be alive in order to be happy.
IP rights holders (patent holders in particular) in many cases possess the legal right to deny access to a product or process that can keep someone alive, either by the patent right itself, or by the market power conveyed by the patent that allows them to price the item out of the reach of people.
So in some sense, yes, IP rights holders can control happiness:-)
Thats not an angle I had considered but it's possible. The angle I considered is the information control angle. Let us assume that profits could be even greater if they relinquished control of information and just put a 10 or 20 second ad before ALL youtube videos and paid directly to the IP holders. This might actually generate more money than they would get from the digital music sales. But this would give control to the user and creator while the IP holder which is usually the record industry has to relinquish control.
They control everything right now from what songs get the most radio play, to what songs/artists get put on MTV and VH1. This is very much like Microsoft thinking they are entitled to profits from Windows sales to the point where the customer views it as the Windows tax.
On top of this hardware is made more expensive as well because the hardware companies often take orders from IPholders who tell them they need all this advanced anti copyright type technology which never really works to begin with. Google is profiting just fine off ad revenue and so do a lot of websites. There is also the subscription model, micropayments, and many many other models which would be more profitable for artists and customers but which reduce control from IP holders who usually aren't the customers or the artists. The music industry is pimps and hoes and the artists are the hoes.
It's not a matter of if they are capable of controlling happiness. Thats their way of expressing dominance. It's not entirely about profits, because if it were they would take profits even at a loss of control which they don't and wont ever do.
IP rights holders want control of entertainment. They do not want free or cheap entertainment to exist. You have some of them trying to ban radio because people might record from it. Of course it doesn't work but if the world worked the way their model proposes it should, if you don't have the money then you wouldn't be able to listen to music, watch movies, or play electronic games.
Fortunately there is the creative commons, the copyleft strategy. No I don't think economic control is the same thing as profitability. Microsoft wants economic control and information dominance. Google wants profits and will let you do whatever with information as long as they get to organize it and they make their money by eyeballs.
It's not an easy point to understand because it's about power not profits.
How much do they spend on concerts, going to movies, and buying video games and the like? I don't know many people who don't spend ANY money on entertainment. Potheads might be the one exception.
They want to make money off the internet in a way that the internet isn't designed for. Imagine if you got charged extra on your cable bill for every video you watch on MTV or ever song you listen to on the radio were 99 cent. Now if they wanted to go with micropayments I could accept that. If we pay 10 cent a play or something like that but the point it is should never surpass X amount of money per month. They know how much money we have to spend on entertainment, they know a lot of us don't have big money so raising the prices on mp3s to $1.25 might have been a good move if the economy were improving but now it's worse, shouldn't they bring their prices down for a while? No of course they don't do that.
How about people who don't have a job? How about ad revenue based play? You download an mp3 for free and each time you play it you hear a brief 10 second ad before it starts? This would work too but they don't consider anything that could change their control model. I'm sure Google wouldn't mind the ad revenue model, as it works with Youtube.
The war on filesharing is untimely.(Bad economics)
Because they'd rather you not listen to their music at all than let you download it.
This is about information control, and controlling who can and cannot be happy. It's also about profit margins. But the truth is most college students and recent college grads aren't going to spend more than a specific amount of money every year on entertainment no matter what they do. They can pass any laws they want and it's not going to improve the job market. They should be finding a way to make money on ad revenue but instead they want to keep the old models even when the economy doesn't support it.
Because they'd rather lock you up than hire you or give you a raise.
If a college student budgets $200 to spend on movies and music for that year thats what he or she is going to spend. He or she can spend it all on one concert or buy albums and movies on itunes but the limit is not going to change no matter what laws they pass. As the economy is getting worse they keep upping the price of the music on itunes so that young people can afford less and less of it, while at the same time complaining that sales are down. They cannot have it both ways, and they have to compromise just like everyone else has been forced to do in this economy.
If they think passing ACTA is a good idea it's not. It's not going to make someone friendly to your business if you sue them. This goes for corporations like Google or for individuals. And the 3 strikes policy is completely unacceptable, ruin a persons livelihood because they downloaded some music they couldn't afford or didn't want to risk paying for? Find another strategy, not wait until an economic depression to crack down hard on all the poor jobless undergrads and recent grads unless they really want to make the the situation worse and make people desperate.
If sales figures are down it's because we have less disposable income. If people aren't buying music, movies or art it's because they are paying their bills. Find a way to expand the market, is that even up for debate? And before anyone comments, I own several copyrights and these people backing ACTA do not represent me.
What are we supposed to use a 3TB drive for? The internet isn't fast enough for most of us to fill it up.
Look, just because your low testosterone porn collection fits on your USB keychain fob, don't for a minute think that the rest of us feel the need to be so constrained.
There are more pictures on the Internet, elucido, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.....
Why not save your porn on the cloud? Why save it on your harddrive? That seems like the dumb place to store it if you have better options.
Except for, you know, raw capacity. Oh, and price.
The only thing I can think of would be if you are an artist who makes movies, or if you run a business but even then you'd probably invest in something better than this.
This product seems to be "better" but it's also over $500. Thats certainly out of my price range and probably out of the price range for the majority. On the other hand it supports 128bit AES encryption. It supports HARDWARE encryption and you don't have to write down any passwords. I'd say it's a great external drive but once again $500+ for a 1.5TB drive?
Bigger drives have their purposes but overtime the bigger the drive the harder it is to organize all the data. If you know how to use regular expressions and desktop search you can solve the organization problem but then you end up with the problem of how to secure the data. You can encrypt the data with a password but to be secure it probably has to be written down which defeats the purpose. And none of these drives seem to be solid state drives. This means backing up files is usually slow as hell.
It's very useful to have 3TB backup. I'd say any serious user would need something like this, but it's better to go with speed and security for the price if you have to make a choice.
If you download 3 TB of movies from bit torrent you'd be a fool to store it on that drive. On top of all that it's not solid state. Why do they even make drives which aren't solid state?
A solid state drive which is 200 gigs would be far superior to the 3TB drive for external storage because of it's speed.
At this point we need faster more secure storage, not bigger. A solid state drive with optional encryption would be far more impressive than a 3 TB drive. What are we supposed to use a 3TB drive for? The internet isn't fast enough for most of us to fill it up. When we all have FIOS it might be a different story. And even then it will be too slow.
I think what you're describing is a court case, not the requirements for a law to be constitutional. You judge harm to gauge the punishment, after the conviction.
What I'm describing is my legal philosophy. I do not believe in victimless crimes. I believe restrictions on liberty have to be justified and reasonable.
Constitutionally, copyright laws can only be created if they "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" as a way to bring benefits to the citizenry. So yes, they do have to benefit society to be constitutional.
I'm talking about in practice, not Constitutionally. Perhaps the current copyright laws are unconstitutional but it's still legal in practice and courts have declared it Constitutional regardless of if you take a poll and the majority of society disagrees with the current law.
Yes it does. That is what a copyright IS. It's a legal restriction on free speech, in order to make someone money so they will be motivated to create more. All copyright is a restriction on free speech, by definition.
I'm talking about the noncommercial clause.
The noncommercial exception was removed in 1976. Additionally, just because it only limits you some of the time does not mean it is not a restriction. Hate speech laws only limit your speech sometimes. Slander laws only limit your speech in certain cases. That doesn't mean they aren't restrictions on free speech.
And you believe the removal of the noncommercial clause was beneficial to society? Nobody is arguing that there should be no limits. We argue on what the limits should be and why the limits should exist. The noncommercial clause made these limits clear while the current version of copyright law does not make it clear how it's beneficial to society or how it's justified other than the RIAA and big copyright holders like it this way.
Um, what?
Whatever. I'm a bit burned out on this discussion. I really don't think you know what you're talking about and every time I address your points you just twist your pet theories a bit further rather than reevaluate your beliefs. The upshot is, most of the hate speech laws on the books and a good number of the ones proposed are just as constitutional of restrictions on free speech as hundreds of other laws, some of which have existed and been applied consistently as long as we've had our constitution (some like copyright being written into it). Despite your hyperbolic claims, these laws don't "Kill" freedom of speech, rather they just limit speech in purely constitutional ways, that you don't seem to understand or agree with. I think you need to hit the books and understand the concepts involved fully before forming your opinions.
If your counter argument consists entirely of (it's constitutional), then I will agree that under the current interpretation of the Constitution that it is constitutional. But if we are debating whether it's reasonable policy, whether these laws are just, whether the current interpretation of the Constitution is correct, that is where we disagree. It's not a matter of not understanding, I understand and I don't agree with it. Just like I don't agree that prostitution should be illegal, or possession of drugs should be illegal.
This is not a matter of understanding concepts. There are multiple ways to interpret the Constitution and different ways to interpret the same concept. I place a greater value on liberty than on security. So I don't think laws which sacrifice liberty for security are necessary in a majority of cases. There are exceptions such as when there is significant risk of loss of life where an individual yells fire in a crowded room. There are exceptions for individuals who make death threats. There are numerous exceptions that have to be made and are justified.
I don't think hate speech is a justified exception. I think as a policy it's just a bad idea which is not constr
so they wont say go kill them, they'll instead give a map, list of names and addresses, and racial information, and say they are pedophiles, criminals, "hate criminals" or whatever.
That's fine, so long as they aren't telling people those people are evil and need to be killed. That's where they cross the line from violating someone's privacy (not currently a constitutional issue) to violating their right to life and liberty, which certainly is. So long as you're not inciting violence and hate against people, you can give others all the directions you want, although usually nothing will then happen other than them being confused.
I don't see how hate speech laws will be effective because the haters still have a list of names and addresses. They know what they are doing. Just ask Hal turner.
"Harm" is a vague term and the level of indirection is also relative. Is telling someone I'm a cop so they don't stop me when I take their car "harming" them or is it just enabling harm?
There has to be a victim and the victim has to be able to prove that an individual harmed them by their actions. Harm can be physically quantified, it can be financially quantified, psychological is a bit more difficult.
All copyright is a restriction on free speech for the sake of the copyright holder's profit, ostensibly as a way to create long term benefit to society. Free speech means I can say what I want, even if it is quoting word for word what someone else said. Copyright stops me from being able to do that. Copyright is always a free speech issue.
Copyright law does not necessarily have to benefit society. And it does not necessarily have to restrict free speech. You have fair use clauses. You can copy word for word something from a book, you just cannot profit from your activity because the holder has the exclusive right to that. Yes they now want to change the meaning of copyright to say that you cannot copy anything even for personal use but its debateable as to whether or not that is beneficial to society.
What does that have to do with it? Do you think we should legally be unable to say, pass a law that says convicted murderers are not allowed to carry concealed knives, or do you think the fact that you can kill someone with a rock for some reason precludes such a law from being constitutional. If the latter, please explain why you think that.
A convicted murderer who is released from prison should or should not be able to carry a weapon depending on the factors within their case. If it was first degree murder then they should not be allowed to carry a weapon. If it was self defense or justifiable homicide then they should be allowed to carry a weapon. It depends entirely on what kind of murderer they are. Either way it wont make a difference in the real world because they'll kill with anythnig they can get their hands on.
Okay, clearly you don't understand science. Science never, ever proves anything. It provides evidence to support or falsify theories. Thats deductive testing to provide inductive support for a belief. It never proves a belief to be correct. Of course all of this is just evidence that your previous use of the term "scientific" was just a misguided misuse of the word. Lets just move on shall we?
I know that nothing is absolute but statistics are the best measurement we have. Before you make a statement that one action or law is better than another you should have statistics to back that statement.
Yeah, because different laws for different people is such a great idea. Can I be the one deciding if you're dangerous and you speech needs to be limited?
Not different laws for different people, different laws for different situations. We should map out all the situations a person can find themselves in and create laws by situation not by person. If you find yourself in a certain situation then another set of laws might apply to you. Think of sex offender laws, if you are a convicted sex offender then another set of laws will apply once you are convicted of this. Or if you are a convicted felon. Also we should probably consider the individuals likelyhood to reoffend. This is the individualized portion.
Also known as "rule by man". You haven't answered my question. Are you comfortable with me being the one who decided if you're dangerous and need to have our rights restricted instead of it being a matter of law.
It already is like that. I don't necessarily call it rule by man. I don't think a judge alone should decide it. It should be based upon some predetermined laws which kick in after we determine the nature of the man. If the man is a sex offender likely to reoffend if release
You include an implicit statement that I reject. Hate speech laws in general no more "kill freedom of speech" than copyright law, slander law, of truth in advertising law "kills freedom of speech". It's just limiting freedom of speech where it conflicts with other basic legal rights, the same and numerous areas of law have been limiting freedom of speech throughout the entire existence of our nation.
Unless the speech can be proven to harm someone it cannot be restricted in my opinion. Copyright exists to protect the economic interests of whoever owns the copyright. This is a property rights issue not a freedom of speech issue. It's only a freedom of speech issue when they contest file sharers who do not directly harm their economic interests.
Ummm, that's like saying it's possible to kill people using guns and rocks so we shouldn't have laws regarding weapons.
I don't believe in gun control. I believe in murder control.
Umm, do you know what science is?
Prove through statistics that violent speech correlates with violent action. Prove through statistics that restricting violent speech results in a decrease in violent action.
So serial killers should be made mute while average people should be allowed to commit slander or plot murder? That's not only idiotic, but it completely violates the basic concept of rule by law upon which our whole legal system is premised.
When a violent person gives a violent speech it's very different from when a non violent person gives a violent speech. Serial killers who have been violent in the past do not and should not have the right to even be released from prison. Individuals who have been violent in the past who make a threat should be easier to sue. If that person in the past has threatened to hurt someone and has done it, if they threaten me I should have an easier time making a case against them. The law should be in my favor if I respond to their threats because they are proven to be violent. Also average people don't generally commit murder, and slander while harmful is not a free speech issue. Slander can restrict the liberty of another individual by making it harder for them to find a job or conduct their business.
Yeah, because different laws for different people is such a great idea. Can I be the one deciding if you're dangerous and you speech needs to be limited?
Different situations, different people, different laws. It's not scientific to apply one law to all possible people and situations. If a person is a convicted felon they have a different status. If a convicted sex offender threatens to rape somebody they should not be treated the same under the law as somebody who has never commited a crime of that sort. If somebody is known to use their speech as a weapon then THEIR speech can be restricted because they have a history of killing with words and using their speech as a weapon. This is the only exception I can make to remove free speech from anybody or accept restriction on the speech of say, individuals who are in the Aryan Nations who commited violent crimes against minorities in the past. Because of their past the judge should have the ability to restrict their ability to communicate, I'm not so concerned with restricting speech but if someone is a leader of the Aryan Nation, maybe their phone calls should be monitored just in case they are dangerous. Maybe if a jew receives a strange threatening email they should face a different penalty based on the fact that they might be at war with jews.
You need to retake civics class.
You can't learn everything in class. Hate speech isn't what kills people. That is the point. I'm not for restricting anyones speech. Not for restricting the speech of the powerful or of the weak. I'm saying if these hate speech laws pass, then there will be wars to decide how to interpret the different speech. If
ate speech does not harm others. It's annoying but it doesn't harm.
"Hate speech" is a vague term, but some hate speech can lead to harm happening to others, for example a cleric exhorting his followers to kill jews. That currently falls under hate speech law in most states. While the speech itself does not hurt anyone, neither does intentionally mislabeling rat poison as sweetener or telling Vlad to go kill that meddling DA and his whole family. Free speech is not some unlimited right that cannot be governed by law and restricted when said speech endangers the lives and rights of others.
You don't have to speak at all to make people harm others. You can just point to someone and they can be harmed. You can snap your finger and they can be shot. You can wink at someone and they can be killed. So hate speech is really a STUPID and RIDICULOUS excuse to kill freedom of speech.
Yes there are individuals who have enough power to get anyone killed whether they use what we interpret as hate speech or ordinary speech. So the idea of hate speech is dumb from a scientific perspective. Instead we should classify speech by level of danger, based more on whos giving the speech than what the content is.
If a known mafia don is giving a speech and everyone hangs on his every word then maybe that speech is x100 more dangerous than the speech of some dumbass neo nazi kid on the internet. Maybe if we have a priest giving a speech we should pay more attention to it than if they are an ordinary person. Maybe if we have a politician giving a speech we should analyze every word to find any clues of dangerous content.
When powerful people use words their words are more likely to kill, so maybe we should regulate THEIR words.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when did that ever matter? All those out there today that produce intellectual property never see the benefits, or even own it, instead it is owned by some company who takes all of the profits. Scientists and Engineers that should be filthy rich from amazing inventions might be getting paid 50k a year while the stockholders of their company walk away with all of the money that they earned.
There is nothing in copyright that says "You had to create this in order to own it".
Maybe thats what should be changed.
It's not an easy point to understand because it's about power not profits.
It's about both. They want power so they can make profits.
Thats their way of expressing dominance. It's not entirely about profits, because if it were they would take profits even at a loss of control which they don't and wont ever do.
What's wrong with them expressing dominance over their property? Are you saying no one should own anything?
They're allowed to take what profits they want and make what business deals they want. I think you're reading way too much into things.
They want to make money anytime someone watches Transformers 2, for example. That's it. They want legislation and DRM to make it as hard as possible for people to not pay them. They don't care about you. They don't care about your happiness. The just want cash every time someone watches their movie, listens to their song. It's really just that simple.
No ones saying they don't own the copyright. They have a right to profit from it. But thats not what they are trying to do. They are trying to control how we consume the product, how we listen to it, how we watch movies. They want to force us to watch movies on discs when we don't ask for or want discs. They want to force us to accept copying restrictions on music we purchased.
I'm not happy that when I buy music from Itunes that I cannot listen to it in Linux or on another computer. I paid for it so I should be able to do anything I want with it except sell it. This is the issue.
And copyright wasn't invented to make them a profit anytime someone listens to, watches or reads something. When people would buy books once you bought the book you owned it. If you copied the book and sold it then you are directly taking profits away from the copyright owner. Thats not what is at stake here. They want to profit whether or not you influence their profits or not. They want to intrude on your fair use. They want information control, not just profits.
I do agree 100% with the sentiment that even if the RIAA gets every law and every copy protection it can possibly dream up it won't make any more money than it's making now. People aren't going to put down their iPods and stop going to the cinema with their friends just so they can have another CD on their shelf.
I feel that if they managed to get the torrent sites shut down they'd see an increase in CD/itunes sales. People like music enough that they'll pay if they have to.
OTOH, like you said, the world would be a worse place if they did.
Pay for it with whos and what money?
Movies? They almost all torrent and don't bother with theaters. I have so much trouble finding people to go to theaters with.
Video Games? 1/2 of them Torrent or do without, 1/2 of them torrent most PC and buy console (used if they can).
Concerts are more of a grab bag depending on whether or not they LIKE concerts but the ones that do will pay. But that doesn't really count because they literally cannot torrent a concert. Their only options are to pay or not get the concert. Which is really damning evidence to the "People will buy just as much" crowd because the only solid stream of revenue that shows in the one that they CAN'T pirate, implying that if you couldn't pirate the CDs you'd be much more likely to buy them.
If they couldn't pirate cds they wouldn't be any more likely to buy it. It's like asking someone who never buys music to suddenly start buying it. No what they'd do is borrow their friends CDs, trade CDs, but never buy them. Why buy CDs when you can borrow? Why buy DVDs when you can rent or borrow?
lawmakers and everyday people live in different worlds. what they refuse to understand is that if people can get something for free, they will get it for free. period.
another important issue is that it's very dangerous to try to forbid something that you can't actually stop. that's when you lose all authority.
offtopic: http://xkcd.com/137/ . we shouldn't be afraid to say the truth about what we want.
So profit off them getting something for free. Google proves it's possible and really easy.
You download an mp3 for free and each time you play it you hear a brief 10 second ad before it starts?
I would be ok with this kind of pricing model, like hulu and youtube, but the downside is that I have to listen or watch the same exact ad ten times in a row. I would be more ok with commercials or even more commercials if I only ever had to see the same ad once a day. I don't care if I see multiple ads for the same company as long as they are different each time.
If you want to listen to the song 10 times in a row maybe you should just buy the song? And of course the ad should be dynamic and targeted. If you listen to Snoop's gin and juice perhaps a liquor ad would make sense.
A brief 10-second ad before every time I try and play a song would be worse than paying $1.25 to never hear the ad. That shit would get old really, really quickly.
Not if you don't have a job. If you have a good job then it's worse but the entire world isn't going to agree with you on that. Also a lot of songs suck and aren't worth buying so you wont be listening to it more than a few times anyway.
That is a probable result as well but the reason that isn't happening is because they killed off mp3.com so now it's a lot harder to buy anything else. Once again that in my opinion was a deliberate operation on their behalf to retain control and not about profits. Mp3.com was no threat to their market but it allowed individuals like you and me to sell our music and make money without giving them their cut.
Only we don't need them to distribute for us anymore when we have Youtube and Itunes. They now are basically an information control cartel who profits based on their political connections alone. Most of the new musicians coming out aren't even real artists. They don't write their own music, they don't sing on stage, they can't dance, they can't play an instrument, the only thing they can do is look pretty and pretend to be an artist. This is the current system and it sucks.
Why don't we get to choose? Because we lost mp3.com which in my opinion had changed the game for the better and ended up with Itunes which accepted the information control cartel's influence.
I'm not saying the IP holders dont have a right to profit from the IP they own. But they already seem to be making billions in profits, why do they need ACTA? ACTA seems more like a control measure than a profit measure. And if it weren't about control why do they have to act shady and operate in complete secrecy? Usually when people operate in secrecy it's because they are conspiring to rule the world not benefit it.
As for the second part. What the fuck are you talking about? IP rights holders are incapable of controlling happiness. Can you restate your point please?
Not sure what the OP meant by this exactly, but:
Thats not an angle I had considered but it's possible. The angle I considered is the information control angle. Let us assume that profits could be even greater if they relinquished control of information and just put a 10 or 20 second ad before ALL youtube videos and paid directly to the IP holders. This might actually generate more money than they would get from the digital music sales. But this would give control to the user and creator while the IP holder which is usually the record industry has to relinquish control.
They control everything right now from what songs get the most radio play, to what songs/artists get put on MTV and VH1. This is very much like Microsoft thinking they are entitled to profits from Windows sales to the point where the customer views it as the Windows tax.
On top of this hardware is made more expensive as well because the hardware companies often take orders from IPholders who tell them they need all this advanced anti copyright type technology which never really works to begin with. Google is profiting just fine off ad revenue and so do a lot of websites. There is also the subscription model, micropayments, and many many other models which would be more profitable for artists and customers but which reduce control from IP holders who usually aren't the customers or the artists. The music industry is pimps and hoes and the artists are the hoes.
Does it have to be this way?
It's not a matter of if they are capable of controlling happiness. Thats their way of expressing dominance. It's not entirely about profits, because if it were they would take profits even at a loss of control which they don't and wont ever do.
IP rights holders want control of entertainment. They do not want free or cheap entertainment to exist. You have some of them trying to ban radio because people might record from it. Of course it doesn't work but if the world worked the way their model proposes it should, if you don't have the money then you wouldn't be able to listen to music, watch movies, or play electronic games.
Fortunately there is the creative commons, the copyleft strategy. No I don't think economic control is the same thing as profitability. Microsoft wants economic control and information dominance. Google wants profits and will let you do whatever with information as long as they get to organize it and they make their money by eyeballs.
It's not an easy point to understand because it's about power not profits.
I would think a majority can use a spreadsheet and know about http://www.gnucash.org/ and I guess if they didn't they know now.
Those kids who are in debt now are going to be in debt for a long long.. js.
How much do they spend on concerts, going to movies, and buying video games and the like? I don't know many people who don't spend ANY money on entertainment. Potheads might be the one exception.
They want to make money off the internet in a way that the internet isn't designed for.
Imagine if you got charged extra on your cable bill for every video you watch on MTV or ever song you listen to on the radio were 99 cent. Now if they wanted to go with micropayments I could accept that. If we pay 10 cent a play or something like that but the point it is should never surpass X amount of money per month. They know how much money we have to spend on entertainment, they know a lot of us don't have big money so raising the prices on mp3s to $1.25 might have been a good move if the economy were improving but now it's worse, shouldn't they bring their prices down for a while? No of course they don't do that.
How about people who don't have a job? How about ad revenue based play? You download an mp3 for free and each time you play it you hear a brief 10 second ad before it starts? This would work too but they don't consider anything that could change their control model. I'm sure Google wouldn't mind the ad revenue model, as it works with Youtube.
The war on filesharing is untimely.(Bad economics)
Because they'd rather you not listen to their music at all than let you download it.
This is about information control, and controlling who can and cannot be happy. It's also about profit margins. But the truth is most college students and recent college grads aren't going to spend more than a specific amount of money every year on entertainment no matter what they do. They can pass any laws they want and it's not going to improve the job market. They should be finding a way to make money on ad revenue but instead they want to keep the old models even when the economy doesn't support it.
Because they'd rather lock you up than hire you or give you a raise.
If a college student budgets $200 to spend on movies and music for that year thats what he or she is going to spend. He or she can spend it all on one concert or buy albums and movies on itunes but the limit is not going to change no matter what laws they pass. As the economy is getting worse they keep upping the price of the music on itunes so that young people can afford less and less of it, while at the same time complaining that sales are down. They cannot have it both ways, and they have to compromise just like everyone else has been forced to do in this economy.
If they think passing ACTA is a good idea it's not. It's not going to make someone friendly to your business if you sue them. This goes for corporations like Google or for individuals. And the 3 strikes policy is completely unacceptable, ruin a persons livelihood because they downloaded some music they couldn't afford or didn't want to risk paying for? Find another strategy, not wait until an economic depression to crack down hard on all the poor jobless undergrads and recent grads unless they really want to make the the situation worse and make people desperate.
If sales figures are down it's because we have less disposable income. If people aren't buying music, movies or art it's because they are paying their bills. Find a way to expand the market, is that even up for debate? And before anyone comments, I own several copyrights and these people backing ACTA do not represent me.
Look, just because your low testosterone porn collection fits on your USB keychain fob, don't for a minute think that the rest of us feel the need to be so constrained.
There are more pictures on the Internet, elucido, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.....
Why not save your porn on the cloud? Why save it on your harddrive? That seems like the dumb place to store it if you have better options.
Except for, you know, raw capacity. Oh, and price.
The only thing I can think of would be if you are an artist who makes movies, or if you run a business but even then you'd probably invest in something better than this.
http://www.everythingusb.com/seagate-freeagent-xtreme-1.5tb-external-hard-drive-15790.html
This product seems to be "better" but it's also over $500. Thats certainly out of my price range and probably out of the price range for the majority. On the other hand it supports 128bit AES encryption. It supports HARDWARE encryption and you don't have to write down any passwords. I'd say it's a great external drive but once again $500+ for a 1.5TB drive?
Bigger drives have their purposes but overtime the bigger the drive the harder it is to organize all the data. If you know how to use regular expressions and desktop search you can solve the organization problem but then you end up with the problem of how to secure the data. You can encrypt the data with a password but to be secure it probably has to be written down which defeats the purpose. And none of these drives seem to be solid state drives. This means backing up files is usually slow as hell.
It's very useful to have 3TB backup. I'd say any serious user would need something like this, but it's better to go with speed and security for the price if you have to make a choice.
If you download 3 TB of movies from bit torrent you'd be a fool to store it on that drive.
On top of all that it's not solid state. Why do they even make drives which aren't solid state?
A solid state drive which is 200 gigs would be far superior to the 3TB drive for external storage because of it's speed.
At this point we need faster more secure storage, not bigger. A solid state drive with optional encryption would be far more impressive than a 3 TB drive. What are we supposed to use a 3TB drive for? The internet isn't fast enough for most of us to fill it up. When we all have FIOS it might be a different story. And even then it will be too slow.
I think what you're describing is a court case, not the requirements for a law to be constitutional. You judge harm to gauge the punishment, after the conviction.
What I'm describing is my legal philosophy. I do not believe in victimless crimes. I believe restrictions on liberty have to be justified and reasonable.
Constitutionally, copyright laws can only be created if they "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" as a way to bring benefits to the citizenry. So yes, they do have to benefit society to be constitutional.
I'm talking about in practice, not Constitutionally. Perhaps the current copyright laws are unconstitutional but it's still legal in practice and courts have declared it Constitutional regardless of if you take a poll and the majority of society disagrees with the current law.
Yes it does. That is what a copyright IS. It's a legal restriction on free speech, in order to make someone money so they will be motivated to create more. All copyright is a restriction on free speech, by definition.
I'm talking about the noncommercial clause.
The noncommercial exception was removed in 1976. Additionally, just because it only limits you some of the time does not mean it is not a restriction. Hate speech laws only limit your speech sometimes. Slander laws only limit your speech in certain cases. That doesn't mean they aren't restrictions on free speech.
And you believe the removal of the noncommercial clause was beneficial to society? Nobody is arguing that there should be no limits. We argue on what the limits should be and why the limits should exist. The noncommercial clause made these limits clear while the current version of copyright law does not make it clear how it's beneficial to society or how it's justified other than the RIAA and big copyright holders like it this way.
Um, what?
Whatever. I'm a bit burned out on this discussion. I really don't think you know what you're talking about and every time I address your points you just twist your pet theories a bit further rather than reevaluate your beliefs. The upshot is, most of the hate speech laws on the books and a good number of the ones proposed are just as constitutional of restrictions on free speech as hundreds of other laws, some of which have existed and been applied consistently as long as we've had our constitution (some like copyright being written into it). Despite your hyperbolic claims, these laws don't "Kill" freedom of speech, rather they just limit speech in purely constitutional ways, that you don't seem to understand or agree with. I think you need to hit the books and understand the concepts involved fully before forming your opinions.
If your counter argument consists entirely of (it's constitutional), then I will agree that under the current interpretation of the Constitution that it is constitutional. But if we are debating whether it's reasonable policy, whether these laws are just, whether the current interpretation of the Constitution is correct, that is where we disagree. It's not a matter of not understanding, I understand and I don't agree with it. Just like I don't agree that prostitution should be illegal, or possession of drugs should be illegal.
This is not a matter of understanding concepts. There are multiple ways to interpret the Constitution and different ways to interpret the same concept. I place a greater value on liberty than on security. So I don't think laws which sacrifice liberty for security are necessary in a majority of cases. There are exceptions such as when there is significant risk of loss of life where an individual yells fire in a crowded room. There are exceptions for individuals who make death threats. There are numerous exceptions that have to be made and are justified.
I don't think hate speech is a justified exception. I think as a policy it's just a bad idea which is not constr
so they wont say go kill them, they'll instead give a map, list of names and addresses, and racial information, and say they are pedophiles, criminals, "hate criminals" or whatever.
That's fine, so long as they aren't telling people those people are evil and need to be killed. That's where they cross the line from violating someone's privacy (not currently a constitutional issue) to violating their right to life and liberty, which certainly is. So long as you're not inciting violence and hate against people, you can give others all the directions you want, although usually nothing will then happen other than them being confused.
I don't see how hate speech laws will be effective because the haters still have a list of names and addresses. They know what they are doing. Just ask Hal turner.
"Harm" is a vague term and the level of indirection is also relative. Is telling someone I'm a cop so they don't stop me when I take their car "harming" them or is it just enabling harm?
There has to be a victim and the victim has to be able to prove that an individual harmed them by their actions. Harm can be physically quantified, it can be financially quantified, psychological is a bit more difficult.
All copyright is a restriction on free speech for the sake of the copyright holder's profit, ostensibly as a way to create long term benefit to society. Free speech means I can say what I want, even if it is quoting word for word what someone else said. Copyright stops me from being able to do that. Copyright is always a free speech issue.
Copyright law does not necessarily have to benefit society. And it does not necessarily have to restrict free speech. You have fair use clauses. You can copy word for word something from a book, you just cannot profit from your activity because the holder has the exclusive right to that. Yes they now want to change the meaning of copyright to say that you cannot copy anything even for personal use but its debateable as to whether or not that is beneficial to society.
What does that have to do with it? Do you think we should legally be unable to say, pass a law that says convicted murderers are not allowed to carry concealed knives, or do you think the fact that you can kill someone with a rock for some reason precludes such a law from being constitutional. If the latter, please explain why you think that.
A convicted murderer who is released from prison should or should not be able to carry a weapon depending on the factors within their case. If it was first degree murder then they should not be allowed to carry a weapon. If it was self defense or justifiable homicide then they should be allowed to carry a weapon. It depends entirely on what kind of murderer they are. Either way it wont make a difference in the real world because they'll kill with anythnig they can get their hands on.
Okay, clearly you don't understand science. Science never, ever proves anything. It provides evidence to support or falsify theories. Thats deductive testing to provide inductive support for a belief. It never proves a belief to be correct. Of course all of this is just evidence that your previous use of the term "scientific" was just a misguided misuse of the word. Lets just move on shall we?
I know that nothing is absolute but statistics are the best measurement we have. Before you make a statement that one action or law is better than another you should have statistics to back that statement.
Yeah, because different laws for different people is such a great idea. Can I be the one deciding if you're dangerous and you speech needs to be limited?
Not different laws for different people, different laws for different situations. We should map out all the situations a person can find themselves in and create laws by situation not by person. If you find yourself in a certain situation then another set of laws might apply to you. Think of sex offender laws, if you are a convicted sex offender then another set of laws will apply once you are convicted of this. Or if you are a convicted felon. Also we should probably consider the individuals likelyhood to reoffend. This is the individualized portion.
Also known as "rule by man". You haven't answered my question. Are you comfortable with me being the one who decided if you're dangerous and need to have our rights restricted instead of it being a matter of law.
It already is like that. I don't necessarily call it rule by man. I don't think a judge alone should decide it. It should be based upon some predetermined laws which kick in after we determine the nature of the man. If the man is a sex offender likely to reoffend if release
You include an implicit statement that I reject. Hate speech laws in general no more "kill freedom of speech" than copyright law, slander law, of truth in advertising law "kills freedom of speech". It's just limiting freedom of speech where it conflicts with other basic legal rights, the same and numerous areas of law have been limiting freedom of speech throughout the entire existence of our nation.
Unless the speech can be proven to harm someone it cannot be restricted in my opinion. Copyright exists to protect the economic interests of whoever owns the copyright. This is a property rights issue not a freedom of speech issue. It's only a freedom of speech issue when they contest file sharers who do not directly harm their economic interests.
Ummm, that's like saying it's possible to kill people using guns and rocks so we shouldn't have laws regarding weapons.
I don't believe in gun control. I believe in murder control.
Umm, do you know what science is?
Prove through statistics that violent speech correlates with violent action. Prove through statistics that restricting violent speech results in a decrease in violent action.
So serial killers should be made mute while average people should be allowed to commit slander or plot murder? That's not only idiotic, but it completely violates the basic concept of rule by law upon which our whole legal system is premised.
When a violent person gives a violent speech it's very different from when a non violent person gives a violent speech. Serial killers who have been violent in the past do not and should not have the right to even be released from prison. Individuals who have been violent in the past who make a threat should be easier to sue. If that person in the past has threatened to hurt someone and has done it, if they threaten me I should have an easier time making a case against them. The law should be in my favor if I respond to their threats because they are proven to be violent. Also average people don't generally commit murder, and slander while harmful is not a free speech issue. Slander can restrict the liberty of another individual by making it harder for them to find a job or conduct their business.
Yeah, because different laws for different people is such a great idea. Can I be the one deciding if you're dangerous and you speech needs to be limited?
Different situations, different people, different laws. It's not scientific to apply one law to all possible people and situations. If a person is a convicted felon they have a different status. If a convicted sex offender threatens to rape somebody they should not be treated the same under the law as somebody who has never commited a crime of that sort. If somebody is known to use their speech as a weapon then THEIR speech can be restricted because they have a history of killing with words and using their speech as a weapon. This is the only exception I can make to remove free speech from anybody or accept restriction on the speech of say, individuals who are in the Aryan Nations who commited violent crimes against minorities in the past. Because of their past the judge should have the ability to restrict their ability to communicate, I'm not so concerned with restricting speech but if someone is a leader of the Aryan Nation, maybe their phone calls should be monitored just in case they are dangerous. Maybe if a jew receives a strange threatening email they should face a different penalty based on the fact that they might be at war with jews.
You need to retake civics class.
You can't learn everything in class. Hate speech isn't what kills people. That is the point. I'm not for restricting anyones speech. Not for restricting the speech of the powerful or of the weak. I'm saying if these hate speech laws pass, then there will be wars to decide how to interpret the different speech. If
ate speech does not harm others. It's annoying but it doesn't harm.
"Hate speech" is a vague term, but some hate speech can lead to harm happening to others, for example a cleric exhorting his followers to kill jews. That currently falls under hate speech law in most states. While the speech itself does not hurt anyone, neither does intentionally mislabeling rat poison as sweetener or telling Vlad to go kill that meddling DA and his whole family. Free speech is not some unlimited right that cannot be governed by law and restricted when said speech endangers the lives and rights of others.
You don't have to speak at all to make people harm others. You can just point to someone and they can be harmed. You can snap your finger and they can be shot. You can wink at someone and they can be killed. So hate speech is really a STUPID and RIDICULOUS excuse to kill freedom of speech.
Yes there are individuals who have enough power to get anyone killed whether they use what we interpret as hate speech or ordinary speech. So the idea of hate speech is dumb from a scientific perspective. Instead we should classify speech by level of danger, based more on whos giving the speech than what the content is.
If a known mafia don is giving a speech and everyone hangs on his every word then maybe that speech is x100 more dangerous than the speech of some dumbass neo nazi kid on the internet. Maybe if we have a priest giving a speech we should pay more attention to it than if they are an ordinary person. Maybe if we have a politician giving a speech we should analyze every word to find any clues of dangerous content.
When powerful people use words their words are more likely to kill, so maybe we should regulate THEIR words.