Historically Sony has achieved competitive advantage through miniaturization - and after I took a recent trip to Japan and toured their Tokyo showroom the emphasis remains (digital camera's the size of credit cards; videocamera's the size of today's digital camera's, smaller pc's and smaller tv's).
Apple gained access to miniaturization techniques and neutralized that advantage. Sony cannot compete with inferior technology.
That is a very persuasive argument. You make some excellent points. You are why I enjoy slashdot.
But alas, my vast intellect cannot be disuaded so easily.
Now, the issue here is piracy, not survivability. That is why these sites are getting shut down. But let's call it what it is - stealing. So the issue here is stealing.
Let's get to your premise: Works must survive, and the only way to do that is by stealing.
The first part is false - there is no rule that works must survive. Am I against works surviving? No. I understand the tremendous value, historically, scientifically, etc. I do not accept the premise that works MUST survive. It is hard for me to understand how the need of survivability of penicillin is projected to J Lo, but it has.
The second part is false too. Stealing is not the only way to ensure survivability of works. Works can be survived through legal means. Sure some works that have been stolen or copied have survived. That does not make stealing a requirement.
Now, I will let you get the last word, and then our conversation shall conclude. For we don't want it to run dry.
I may not be able to reply for another 24 hours due to my bad karma. (I'm sure qouting Rush helps)
But in the same breath you have told other people what price they should charge for their music AND then criticized others for doing the same exact thing! This is rich!
It should be (what I define as) fair $9-$10, otherwise thats wrong, but don't criticize me if I put it out for free.
I should say most people. The point remains poignant. Even the 'most' argument won't fly against the amount of people who buy water.
I am worried that the quality of music produced and the quality of the musicians will go down if they aren't making money for it. (if you think its bad now...) And what's wrong with charging for the convenience to not have to suffer through a concert?
What is this need for survivability of a work? I guess from a historical perspective. I look at it like a house - if it starts falling apart and is no longer livable, the homeowner (city the property ownership aspect of this) wants to restore it they can, if they want to demolish it they can.
Other persons may want to live in the house or maintain its historic significance. Fine, then they can buy the house. But they usually don't want to shell out the cash, because either the asking price for the disheveled dump is too much or they don't intend to own it. They just want to tell the homeowner what to do with his/her own property. If a song means so much to you that it must survive, then buy it. Buy the song. Buy the rights, find a way. And who is being censored here?
Re:Last Live Musical Performance...
on
EZTree Shuts Down
·
· Score: 1
well, thats the problem - this issue is not whether you would like to see the show, you would like to download the show or even if you can download the show. The key word being you.
The issue is if the band wants to release the show. Now, if something can be create that blogs all the bands that don't, then I see no problem. This one obviously didn't.
I see complaints here about freedom of speech and all that nonsense, but mysteriously absent in any mention of freedom of property. Of course I don't see whose speech is being squelched here? I mean, a person is arrested for robbing a bank is getting their speech revoked. So, if a person steals music?
Finally, your not being alive for the show does not give you a claim to see the show now.
how about napster, or grokster or all of the others that have come and will come along? Add them all up.
oh, no, don't money involved. It turns everyone eeeevil./sarc
Re:Of course they're no threat
on
EZTree Shuts Down
·
· Score: 0, Troll
I'm sure you said that Napster is not a threat, or the multitudes of other music stealing sites.
But look what that started. Grokster. Bittorrent.
Folks, this is stealing. I know in your moral relativistic circles at berkeley or san francisco or the 9th district court this doesn't register. I mean my own homemade video, someone else's copyrighted work - if its on my computer its hard to tell the difference!
whether you want to download it is irrelevant - it isn't yours!
Napster was stealing. So is this. Grokker is too. No one is going to make music for nothing, and no one is going to pay for something they can get for free.
It isn't about 2% vs 3%, it's about +x% vs -100%.
If you wanna trade cd's and live shows of bands that don't care about money, i'm sure the technology can be put together that excludes the metallica's.
Please, tell me what music I am supposed to like. Come on, the record companies don't tell us what to like. They are at our mercy. Just cause the music may be crap to you and me (and trust me, I do not listen to Korn or j-lo), but apparently enough people want to buy it.
Not to mention that whole illegal technicality, you know, the laws instituted by people like me.
Absolutely right, this is not a two-way street if there is no intellectual property controls outside the US. Of course, the writer might be projecting their views of a US with no IP rights and then there would be one.
And why is it that individuals or.orgs always share code but businesses always steal code? I thought employees consented to working for a software firm and so, as part of the mutually consented contract, if they develop code for the firm, it's the firm's property, not the individual's?
But Schwartz is getting at a fundamental belief of the open source movement - the elimination of big corps. Open Sourcers don't intend to bring small developers, the unfortunate or whoever else up - they only intend to bring the big corporations down. How does bringing someone else down lift you up? For some reason or another, despite Word and Java and Powerpoint or whatever else, and IPO's and all this other innovation, somehow these big corps are sending us back to the ice ages!
It's 180 degrees bassackwards.
Forget SUV's, our servers are supposedly causing global warming!
Now this kind of thinking is what really stifles innovation - we have to bend over backward to make less powerful servers to appease some phenomenon that is not really happening.
Yes, we were innovating like crazy before copyrights and patents were instituted by the people and since then it has been the dark ages.
Sun is one of the most innovative tech companies that has ever existed and its success stems from that, i'm sure it is in their interest to promote the status quo./sarc
The truth is 180 degrees from that.
If you cannot reap the fruits of your innovation, why bother to innovate? Where's the stimulus?
Why is it when someone says something that is true, it is an "attack"?
Illegal entry to this country is so common now, any attempt to possibly stem the tide is scene as fascist.
But ahh, come on now, all those ILLEGALS entering the United States are upstanding and hardworking people just trying to find work, I mean once they get into the country they are law-abiding if you forget that whole illegal entry thing.
/sarcasm
Does it not tell you some important information about a person who is entering this country illegally. People who sneak into this country ILLEGALLY do so for a reason. Perhaps we should control our borders?
Also lovely is how, if all those passports and ID's are forged why don't we just let everybody in? Umm, perhaps we do something about the forged id's too (that doesn't involve giving up) if we are checking them?
The low monthly rate, such as $16 or whatnot is assuming everyone opts for the service (or is forced to pay it through tax subsidies.)
But, isn't this the rub - if everyone were willing to do it, we wouldn't need government to provide the service. Private industry would be providing the service. But they don't - because they know the demand just isn't there. For free wireless there is demand. But you gotta pay for it somehow.
Some small entrepreneurs should take the risk and test out the market - but not the government. And unlike the highways, you can easily track the usage of the wifi network through individual user accounts, usernames and passwords. And before you fret, its being done right now folks, so don't fret.
If you got a city of 100,000 people, it doesn't mean you'll have 100,000 wifi subscribers. That's idiotic. Even if you taxed them - forced your fellow citizens to pay, you'd maybe get the $16 from maybe 25k of the 100k. That may be too high as well.
"All that's going on is he doesn't want the media to publish it"
They may prefer to introduce these issues through the standard main stream media channels, than let it be introduced to the public through blogger leaks. Either way, it will be introduced to the public. The dispersal of information can no longer be controlled.
And I do believe this Adscam story has already been leaked
Slashdot Mirror
Historically Sony has achieved competitive advantage through miniaturization - and after I took a recent trip to Japan and toured their Tokyo showroom the emphasis remains (digital camera's the size of credit cards; videocamera's the size of today's digital camera's, smaller pc's and smaller tv's).
Apple gained access to miniaturization techniques and neutralized that advantage. Sony cannot compete with inferior technology.
Kangarooski,
That is a very persuasive argument. You make some excellent points. You are why I enjoy slashdot.
But alas, my vast intellect cannot be disuaded so easily.
Now, the issue here is piracy, not survivability. That is why these sites are getting shut down. But let's call it what it is - stealing. So the issue here is stealing.
Let's get to your premise: Works must survive, and the only way to do that is by stealing.
The first part is false - there is no rule that works must survive. Am I against works surviving? No. I understand the tremendous value, historically, scientifically, etc. I do not accept the premise that works MUST survive. It is hard for me to understand how the need of survivability of penicillin is projected to J Lo, but it has.
The second part is false too. Stealing is not the only way to ensure survivability of works. Works can be survived through legal means. Sure some works that have been stolen or copied have survived. That does not make stealing a requirement.
Now, I will let you get the last word, and then our conversation shall conclude. For we don't want it to run dry.
I may not be able to reply for another 24 hours due to my bad karma. (I'm sure qouting Rush helps)
But in the same breath you have told other people what price they should charge for their music AND then criticized others for doing the same exact thing! This is rich!
It should be (what I define as) fair $9-$10, otherwise thats wrong, but don't criticize me if I put it out for free.
I should say most people. The point remains poignant. Even the 'most' argument won't fly against the amount of people who buy water.
I am worried that the quality of music produced and the quality of the musicians will go down if they aren't making money for it. (if you think its bad now...) And what's wrong with charging for the convenience to not have to suffer through a concert?
What is this need for survivability of a work? I guess from a historical perspective. I look at it like a house - if it starts falling apart and is no longer livable, the homeowner (city the property ownership aspect of this) wants to restore it they can, if they want to demolish it they can.
Other persons may want to live in the house or maintain its historic significance. Fine, then they can buy the house. But they usually don't want to shell out the cash, because either the asking price for the disheveled dump is too much or they don't intend to own it. They just want to tell the homeowner what to do with his/her own property. If a song means so much to you that it must survive, then buy it. Buy the song. Buy the rights, find a way.
And who is being censored here?
well, thats the problem - this issue is not whether you would like to see the show, you would like to download the show or even if you can download the show. The key word being you.
The issue is if the band wants to release the show. Now, if something can be create that blogs all the bands that don't, then I see no problem. This one obviously didn't.
I see complaints here about freedom of speech and all that nonsense, but mysteriously absent in any mention of freedom of property. Of course I don't see whose speech is being squelched here? I mean, a person is arrested for robbing a bank is getting their speech revoked. So, if a person steals music?
Finally, your not being alive for the show does not give you a claim to see the show now.
how about napster, or grokster or all of the others that have come and will come along? Add them all up.
/sarc
oh, no, don't money involved. It turns everyone eeeevil.
I'm sure you said that Napster is not a threat, or the multitudes of other music stealing sites. But look what that started. Grokster. Bittorrent. Folks, this is stealing. I know in your moral relativistic circles at berkeley or san francisco or the 9th district court this doesn't register. I mean my own homemade video, someone else's copyrighted work - if its on my computer its hard to tell the difference! whether you want to download it is irrelevant - it isn't yours!
Napster was stealing. So is this. Grokker is too. No one is going to make music for nothing, and no one is going to pay for something they can get for free.
It isn't about 2% vs 3%, it's about +x% vs -100%.
If you wanna trade cd's and live shows of bands that don't care about money, i'm sure the technology can be put together that excludes the metallica's.
Please, tell me what music I am supposed to like. Come on, the record companies don't tell us what to like. They are at our mercy. Just cause the music may be crap to you and me (and trust me, I do not listen to Korn or j-lo), but apparently enough people want to buy it. Not to mention that whole illegal technicality, you know, the laws instituted by people like me.
torrents on EasyTree were usually unreleased live musical performances rather than commercial product.
Absolutely right, this is not a two-way street if there is no intellectual property controls outside the US. Of course, the writer might be projecting their views of a US with no IP rights and then there would be one. And why is it that individuals or .orgs always share code but businesses always steal code? I thought employees consented to working for a software firm and so, as part of the mutually consented contract, if they develop code for the firm, it's the firm's property, not the individual's?
But Schwartz is getting at a fundamental belief of the open source movement - the elimination of big corps. Open Sourcers don't intend to bring small developers, the unfortunate or whoever else up - they only intend to bring the big corporations down. How does bringing someone else down lift you up? For some reason or another, despite Word and Java and Powerpoint or whatever else, and IPO's and all this other innovation, somehow these big corps are sending us back to the ice ages!
It's 180 degrees bassackwards.
Forget SUV's, our servers are supposedly causing global warming! Now this kind of thinking is what really stifles innovation - we have to bend over backward to make less powerful servers to appease some phenomenon that is not really happening.
Yes, we were innovating like crazy before copyrights and patents were instituted by the people and since then it has been the dark ages. Sun is one of the most innovative tech companies that has ever existed and its success stems from that, i'm sure it is in their interest to promote the status quo. /sarc
The truth is 180 degrees from that.
If you cannot reap the fruits of your innovation, why bother to innovate? Where's the stimulus? Why is it when someone says something that is true, it is an "attack"?
Illegal entry to this country is so common now, any attempt to possibly stem the tide is scene as fascist.
But ahh, come on now, all those ILLEGALS entering the United States are upstanding and hardworking people just trying to find work, I mean once they get into the country they are law-abiding if you forget that whole illegal entry thing.
Does it not tell you some important information about a person who is entering this country illegally. People who sneak into this country ILLEGALLY do so for a reason. Perhaps we should control our borders?
Also lovely is how, if all those passports and ID's are forged why don't we just let everybody in? Umm, perhaps we do something about the forged id's too (that doesn't involve giving up) if we are checking them?
The low monthly rate, such as $16 or whatnot is assuming everyone opts for the service (or is forced to pay it through tax subsidies.) But, isn't this the rub - if everyone were willing to do it, we wouldn't need government to provide the service. Private industry would be providing the service. But they don't - because they know the demand just isn't there. For free wireless there is demand. But you gotta pay for it somehow. Some small entrepreneurs should take the risk and test out the market - but not the government. And unlike the highways, you can easily track the usage of the wifi network through individual user accounts, usernames and passwords. And before you fret, its being done right now folks, so don't fret. If you got a city of 100,000 people, it doesn't mean you'll have 100,000 wifi subscribers. That's idiotic. Even if you taxed them - forced your fellow citizens to pay, you'd maybe get the $16 from maybe 25k of the 100k. That may be too high as well.
"All that's going on is he doesn't want the media to publish it" They may prefer to introduce these issues through the standard main stream media channels, than let it be introduced to the public through blogger leaks. Either way, it will be introduced to the public. The dispersal of information can no longer be controlled. And I do believe this Adscam story has already been leaked