YOu state that the generational gap appeared in the 60's when the younger generation turned it's back on it's parents. YOu seem to be forgetting one important point here.
VIETNAM! "young people" were turning thier backs because that older generation was drawing them by birthdate to send them into a meat grinder from which they likely wouldnt return for a cause they didn't believe in. That is a much greater stimulus for rebellion than a video game.
Another thing to remember, that which is credited for the "change".. rock and roll, drugs, the tune in-turn on-drop out TV culture.. co-evolved over the previous ten years, and became a tool for them to use in their rebellion.
However, they *were* rebelling against something specific.. a very real fear and chance that they might be chosen by the bean counters to die.. rather than not being allowed to have a game, or not being allowed to have the credit card to go to the mall. There is a world of difference here.
At 31 years old, all I can say is my generation and the ones closely following it are in a unique situation.. we have never seen a war in which anyone who didnt *want* to go had to go... that is a galvanizing thing that most young people today dont realize, and cannot imagine. But I think that if it came to that point, (and it well could, viewing the middle east right now) I think Video Games would be the *last* form of rebellion or back turning going on.. overthrowing the government would be much more likely.
I think my generation and those slightly younger are actually bright enough to realize that they dont *have* to follow the rules if they dont want to, and that is not the influence of games or movies, it is the influence of everyday life.. how many times does one have to see a high profile celeb or politician slide on charges that someone you know has gotten hung on before one realizes that it is possible to say "screw the system" and make it stick?
I dont think it is getting any *more* violent.. after all.. violence has existed since the dawn of time. (OG discovers a rock is harder than OOG's skull.) The disturbing thing, to me, is the paralells one can draw between this civilization and it's "entertainment" now, and Rome, or Greece, or France right before the Revolution. (Or Japan, Germany,.. you can find a paralell just about anywhere). The problem I see, to use Rome as an example.. the more violent the games got, to the point where women were forced to kill their children, where people were stuck in an iron bull and bets were taken on how long it took them to stop kicking and screaming after a fire was built.. etc.. built a catharsis in their society.. always looking for a bigger kick. Not that I think for a minute that someone playing Doom is going to get a *real* shotgun.. but they will keep looking for a bigger, better game. This is touchy then, at what age they are exposed to them. An adult, or a 17 year old, is much better suited to discern and to control their impulses about gameplay or reality than, say, a 7 year old.
The more violence is accepted in film, games, TV, etc, the more people are inclined to accept it in every day life, as it paralells, and the human mind doesnt necessarily discern it when its in the background. Whether this is good or bad, I dont know.. and I dont pretend to know.. but if you look at the historical trends in other past cultures, it tends to snowball to a point and then go *POP* loudly. (Of course, no democracy has ever lasted very long anyway, and we are about at the end of the projected lifespan.. so we shall see, eh?)
1) Gaming is not entirely viewed as bad.. Myst was never accused of being violent!
2)This was *NOT* central to the presidential election, anymore than the health concerns in Rwanda was. PLEASE Katz! Stop turning a single media reference into War of the Worlds! Liebermans crew want to stop TV.. and the "furor" during the campaigns was about movie ratings, and how they screened films, *NOT* about games. Basically, with the price of games and the price of game level systems, especially on the PC, (which are the *most* violent games) few people under 18 are getting them without their parents knowledge anyway, and anyone over 18 is out of the hands of the gubmint censors in that arena.
You are trying *WAYYY* to hard to tie this to hellmouth.. its not going to work.. I'm really starting to get sick and tired of "Waaah.. I'm a misunderstood genius, Waaaah.. they pick on me cuz I'm a geek, WAaaaah.. they are mean to me at school so I'm gonna blow it up" crap.. GET OVER IT! Most of us went through it.. and where are we now? In IT.. where are "they"? Would you like fries with that?
Cmon.. video games are *not* the world changer you are trying to make them be!
That he has not clue one about culture, life, or much of anything actually. You say "up down up down left right" to me and I'm going to think you are some kind of line dancing idiot. And I'm "any male his age"..
ARGHH! Will someone get JonKatz a *REAL* job? PLEASE? Let him see what it is actually like in the world?
To keep this on topic: 10 years ago he would have been saying exactly the same thing about records.. remember the panic about record labeling, etc? And in 10 years it will be something totally different.. I am very leary of "more than any other thing in today's society.." If anything, Video Games are less important that TV.. look at MTV's influence on the elections.. and on voter registration.. look at how many people use Leno and Letterman monologues to interpret the news. Hell, look at most (not all) people my age.. (late twenties) and realize that they have the attention spans of gnats, and run like sheep to the hottest new thing, without thinking for a moment *WHY* they are doing it! Video games are pervasive right now only because they are "hip" and they are a tool to prove your superiority.. "I have a PS/2, you only have Dreamcast, loser".. its like those stupid razor scooters people are buying in droves, and 4000 dollar mountain bikes two years ago.. its a fad, its a status symbol, and it's instant chic.. and not much else.
Buddhist or early native american stuff? After all, the Fylfot (swastika) was used a heck of a lot by a heck of a lot of people (still is, in some buddhist areas) long before Dolf baby got ahold of it. Wonder if they ban that too, on the grounds that it contains an offensive symbol? (I can show you older churches on the US east coast where it is still in the tilework as decorative bordering).
The French.. Le SIGH!
Okay, let me get this straight:
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 1
Because people online can legally get away with use of things.. copyrighted material, services, phone use,etc, that they would normally have to pay for, and are now *being* asked to pay for, we are a selfish and intolerant bunch?
HUH? Sorry.. but the ones yelling and screaming about Napster going away are *NOT* the techno savvy geeks out there that this is aimed at. We have all moved on to other, less known, and unstoppable (for now) ways to get our MP3. We will always find ways to skirt the system. Again, this isnt necessarily morally correct. I mean, if I climb an electric pole and do my own hookup, will I scream if they find out and try to charge me for the electricity? No, because I knew that was a possiblity when I did it.
I think there is a problem when just because people could get away with it, it apparently sets a precedent that is later used as justification. I mean, the guy who wrote PKZIP put it out as shareware.. just because you *COULD* use it for free forever doesnt mean you *SHOULD* use it for free forever.
Basically, there are end results for every action.. I dont think we are Selfish, Intolerant, or non-politically active. Face it Katz, most of us have too much to do to head to Washington and join the great unwashed in the million chiphead march on the mall. We would rather use our right to vote, our right to inform, and our right to influence to see the people *IN* those positions changed.
lets face it.. who opens more eyes and ears and gets a better reception? THe screaming sweating mob that gets a two minute blurb on the evening news in DC, or the group that puts up an attractive web-page explaining their views and *WHY* their views are superior, and makes sure lots and lots of people see it?
I'll admit.. I am kind of scared when I search for MPAA or DMCA and get porn pages listed in the hits *before* I get to a page with actual content about what I'm looking for.. but that just goes to show.. the things that *make* money do better. Until that changes, unfortunately, we are still going to be fighting an uphill battle, and instead of whining about it or decrying it as unfair, we must educate ourselves and each other on how to *fight* it legally. (and no, I dont mean burning a million copies of Metallicas last great album and sending them out to people.. I mean getting representation in court.. A LA 2600.)
***Please keep in mind, that we're talking about a possible copyright infringment. Not theft. They are 2 completely different things. And not only that, but the law is being reviewed and rewritten now for copyrights. So you might as well wait see what the law actually SAYS before you start pointing fingers.***
AFAIK, it is already illegal.. it is illegal by the DMCA to make a digital copy of something. Period. So somewhere along the line, someone did that, and broke the law. If you transmit or recieve that, without the artist specific consent, you are what, aiding and abetting? an accessory? something, anyway. Granted.. some artists freely release their work via the web. (Beastie Boys, etc) BUT: other artist do not. My giving a digital copy of a Metallica CD to someone is, tecnically, illegal. Or I misread the law. As it stands now tho, I dont think it is legal.
OTOH: I think it is ridiculous to say "You can copy a CD to tape to listen to in your car, but you cannot copy it to a CD to listen to in your car, or on your PC so you dont have to take the CD off the shelf.".. thats just silly.. I think personal use copyrights should exist. once I pay the personal use royalty on a song, if I make 0, 1, or a billion copies of a song, as long as I am not redistributing them, I should be fine. (I did have someone argue that if I got the CD stolen, any MP3's I had should be removed, and I would have to RE-BUY the CD to get new copies, as the copyright follows the item, not the purchase.)
But, my point is, if you buy a car illegaly, you bought it illegaly.. when someone has something that is worth money, or is traditionally paid for, and you get it for free against their wishes and against the law, you are stealing. By transmitting copies of Metallica songs, (frinstance) you are stealing from Metallica, who would normally charge a royalty fee for it. I dont see what is so hard to understand about that.
I will use the same analogy I used in another post.. if you invent something, and copyright it, and I start making them and give them away for free, thereby taking away *YOUR* source of income, I suspect you would consider it stealing, not merely a "copyright infringement".
Apples and oranges. Music is not an *idea*. I would agree if you heard someone hum something, and then made a song out of it. What you are talking about is not what I am talking about. Music is something that has been produced, it is a product.. and that comes at a cost. Millions of dollars worth of cost, in some instances. The end product, the song, is sold at a "fair market price" (IE: what the people will pay for it) in an attempt to recoup some of those losses. Its not right, moral, or just, to say "because I can copy this, and Im not physically removing it from the artist, its okay."
Which only proves that it is *okay* as long as someone elses ox is getting gored. I suspect that if you came up with something you could make good solid money on, and that was your livelihood, then you would feel differently when someone started taking your livelihood away and simply called you a "fucking whiner" for wanting some recompense for the hours and hours of work you put into developing it in the first place.
**you are actually incorrect. That was a payment to the MODEL, not to the copyright holder of the picture. The model could have gotten a per-publication royalty, but generally they don't. In that sense, they would be the same as a studio musician, in that the musician gets paid a fixed amount to show up and play for a day on the recording, and that's it as far as the musician goes. A studio musician is not considered an "artist" so much as a worker.**
Okay.. Im interested now..please enlighten me. When I buy software, a record, a (whatever) its right there in plain print on the sleeve or box or somewhere what "fair use" of that is. However, a picture I find in a newsgroup has no such information on it. I snap a picture with my quickcam of my Pirhana swimming happily in his tank, and post it to rec.fish.with.big.teeth, and later find that same picture on some dudes webpage, do I have any legal recourse? Is a disclaimer of some sort required? That was the basis of my argument.. I understand that there *are* copyrighted images... there are also a heck of a lot that *arent* copyrighted in any verifiable way. Is a copyright implied and automatic? I see a lot of pages where someone has "Copyright, Dave Jones, 1963" on a picture, but I suspect that would be impossible to prove.
So, what you are saying, is that if you invent something, and I see it and start copying it, you are losing nothing? That is the best analogy I can think of to this.. you are saying "its okay for me to copy something you made, as long as I dont make any money off of it.. and thereby deprive *you* of revenue, because you *DO* make money off of it"?
Heh..yes.. I thought about this after I posted it and realized it was not that good a point.. what I was thinking of was how music usually endures.. a CD worth 17.99 this month is worth 17.99 (market) in five years.. and the artist is *theoretically* getting royalties off of this. However, in the case of the kind of pictures you find on the internet, (read pr0n) they are either a) one time modeling payments, and therefore paid for at the beginning, or b) public domain or uncopyrighted that some twit put on a website for 19.99 a month (recurring charges unless you unsubscribe at midnight during a full moon while wearing otter-fur underwear) and are therefore *claiming* a copyright that doesnt exist, or that they entirely made up.
But, the main point I was trying to make was, **theoretically** at least, as long as the album keeps selling, they artist keeps getting money. If that is *NOT* the case, then the artist should have argued their contract a little better at the get go, which is no-one but the ARTISTS fault.. its not the fault of the record industry, they simply keep on gettin away with what they can get away with.. if all the artists went "Uh.. NO.. " then it would change. Welcome to a free market society folks.. where the end user *can* dictate policy.
**Depriving someone of the use of something they own. Copying an mp3 doesn't deprive anyone of the use of it, therefore it isn't theft**
Thou art mistaken, M'lord.. if you go to a consignment store, and take something out of the store that they dont own, but are merely holding, you are stealing from that store. You are depriving someone of royalties when you download their music without paying the appropriate fees.. whether or not you choose to admit it. Music costs money.. everywhere you hear it. One of Katz' first pieces was about "free music" that you hear.. he wasnt totally right.. if you hear music in an elevator, a hotel lobby, a grocery store, etc, more than likely that place has *PAID* for the right to use/broadcast this music over their loudspeakers. (legally, they are supposed to). So music isnt free.. someone is *giving* that music to you in that case. But if you just rip it off the net, it is theft, plain and simple. If you dont like it, get the laws changed.. but as of now, its theft.
Oh PLEASE.. what "free culture"? There is *NO* "free culture". Unless you are running around the back alleys of a city at midnight with a gun, nothing is "free". You pay for everything, one way or another.
Katz. Im really starting to get tired of your incessant whining that the 'net should be a communistic place. Its one thing for.Jpg's and.gif's to be posted, because they are typically a one time payment to the model/artist, but its *totally* different to post a song that is a retail commodity. As I said in another post.. as soon as you put your books up in.pdf format, so I dont have to buy them, I will start to accept that you believe what you claim to believe.
People arent being "branded" theives.. people are BEING theives. Copyrights exist to protect the creator as much as to spur them on to create new works. Sorry, but its true. And what spurs musicians on to create? for some, the sheer love of making music, for others, the sheer love of folding green. Sorry dude, but I'm not going to spend 10 months writing and recording songs, just to have some jackass on the net tell me it should be "free" simply because it can be transmitted by PC. That is theft, plain and simple, and theres no real argument about it. The law states that if you make a digital copy of music, and distribute it, you are a criminal. Course, it also says if you drive over the state speed limit you are a criminal. The difference is that some crimes just arent prosecuted, and so far, this is one of them. Doesnt make it any more right.
As far as making it "free".. well, we saw how well that worked with shareware. *sigh* I have actually sent money for programs I like... because I'm honest like that.. but in today's society, of coroporate raiding and clawing ones way to the top, I can certainly see where I would be a minority.
I think you just really *REALLY* need to admit that you want to be a communist when you grow up, and stop using "culture" as a brand to mark it with. Its not "culture" its "how much can I get away with".. which, IMHO, is less culture, and more counter-culture.
Two Live Crew wasnt banned, they were (partly) the instigation for the "record labeling flap" by the Second Lady Tipper Gore. *boo hiss*.
Basically, what they got them on was obscenity charges, if I remember correctly, and the fact that cursing in the open in certain places they played was against the laws of that municipality.
I do understand that your TV stations are a *lot* more relaxed about what they can broadcast, than even our non-premium cable stations are, but we dont have "content" laws governing our radio here. We do have obsenity law, and I'm not sure which I prefer.
Im not trying to put down Canada, by any means, I'm just trying to say there are two sides to every coin.
I know that the Bare Naked Ladies werent allowed to play at one of the huge arenas in Toronto because of their name alone. (though Im sure it was the owners of the arena.. Air Canada, I think, who pushed it, not GMTA or anything.)
Yes, but in Canada they also censor albums outright. Check out GWAR's latest release here and in Canada..you will notice a pretty staggering difference. This is the difference between them and us.. they actually take stuff OFF the liner and OFF the album before it is legal to sell.. we just slap a sticker on it to warn parents against it and to draw badass billy rebel *to* it.
Thanks.. I'd rather deal with a few crappy songs than having Il Duce choose my music for me.
....The RIAA wants to have complete control over what people hear. They don't want people to know there are mucisians who don't use their distribution channels. And anything that may threaten these efforts is deemed worthy of destruction. It's the same with MPAA....
Oh lord.. now the RIAA is big brother? look! quick! theres a republican behind every bush and under every bed!.
IT boils down to one thing.. M-O-N-E-Y. The RIAA is not going to spend hella money on promo-ing a band that isnt going to make a lot. BUT: the RIAA is *not* stopping, nor could they stop, a band from putting their *OWN* music up, (assuming its a non RIAA band.).
ON the Blockbuster front, what do you expect them to do? PAY the 70 bucks they pay for a new release that no-one will ever rent and then lose valuable shelf space and revenue? Or give that space to another three copys of "american beauty" which will get rented out so much it wears out?
Cmon.. its supply and demand. The supply is the RIAA (or blockbuster) and the Demand is what we arent doing. If we all stop BUYING Cd's for 18 bucks, if we all start DEMANDING movies at rental houses, etc, then things will change. Until then, stealing is *NOT* The answer.
I'm reminded of the old Minor Threat records when the album said "cost.. 5.99 if it is marked up, STEAL THIS RECORD" to stop just that sort of thing. Ian sold it for 6 bucks.. others would re-sell, (or buy dozens of new ones, ship them to Cali, and resell for 25 bucks each) thus ripping the artist off. *WE* have the power.. but the lemmings of the world will see to it that we *DONT* get to exercise it, because they are the MTV generation, and belly buttons and brittney sell records to pud pounding teenagers to fuel their lil fantasies.
...Let's leave the artist out of the argument. He's getting screwed out of his work regardless. I'd be in favor of paying for the MP3's that I download from Napster if I knew that it was actually going to the artist, but it isn't, not much of it anyway...
So now, due to the artists inability to negotiate a contract with his record company that he is actually okay with, its okay to steal from the record companys?
Gee.. I offered Dodge 45 bucks for a new viper, but they told me I couldnt have it.. so I stole it.. its fair anyway, cause everyone KNOWS that car companys and dealers jack up prices.
...Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it sounds like you think that those royalties go straight to the musicians. It doesn't. A recording contract is a work for hire that is the artist records the music and it becomes the sole property of the record company. The royalties are paid to the record company and if it is included in the contract, a fraction of that amount is paid to the artist...
You are at least partially wrong on one count that I know of. When Bad Religion/Epitaph records got picked up by a major label, they retained rights to the entire catalog, as WELL as negotiating it into the contract that that major label must distribute Epitaph bands *EVERYWHERE* they sell their mainstream music. Its more the fault of dumb lawyers and musicians looking for a get rick quick or a quick payoff than anything else.
Do It Yourself music has been around for years.. (Alternative Tentacles, Minor Threat, most punk bands) and it *WORKS*.. (look at the Misfits, for an example). So anyone who claims that the record industry is "screwing the musician" is only seeing part of the story. The fact of the matter is, the person getting screwed here is the audience. Do you *REALLY* think that that CD is worth 17 or 18 dollars? How about those Depeche Mode CD's that are a million years old, that arent being advertised, or promo'd, but now cost more (re-released) than the originals cost? WHY ARE WE BUYING THEM? if we only paid 5 bucks for a new CD, the record company would *STILL* be contractually obligated to pay the musicians up front.. getting them their money. And maybe I wouldnt have to put up with the Back Door BOys on every channel on TV for months at a shot.
Basically, the RIAA is trying to protect its financial interests.. not the musicians. Lars said on day one "this isnt about money, its about morals".
>>Don't think that this is about piracy. If that were the case they would have gone after radio stations a long time ago. If these guys win I could see them creating their own Napster with inferior MP3s of only the songs that they want to promote, geared solely to get you to buy those one-hit-wonder CDs
Sorry chief, but Radio pays royalties to be able to play music on the air. The stations are also federally regulated, paying taxes on their advertising revenue, etc. This is a far far cry from Napster, where anything, released or not, can be gotten from someone who takes the time to rip a copy of it.
You are comparing apples to Orangutans here, and the two just dont work together.
So, basically, what you are saying, is that the "consumers" (read: thiefs) have some important legal rights here. WHAT RIGHTS? the right to rip off someone who spent many thousands of dollars to create music? the right to steal a film that cost Lucas 40 MILLION dollars to make, without having to pay a royalty fee?
I can see the arguments about having your own backup copy of music you own.. and I dont think there should be a distinction between digital or analog reproduction FOR YOUR OWN USE. But the main fact of the matter is that IF ITS COPYRIGHTED MUSIC ITS BEING STOLEN. period. End of discussion.
Heres a frinstance: I find a book by a long winded, boring, windbag, that usually sells for about 30 bucks on the open market, and I scan it into.pdf format for people to download and print, and hey, even bind into hard copy. Is the person who wrote that book going to get their knickers in a knot? yeah. is the book company that is using that 70% cut of the retail price going to suffer directly? Probably not. However, when it comes time for the advances for the next book, or for the company to dump some money on a very good, but as-yet-unknown author with no portfolio, are they going to? Probably not.
This is a retail society.. you get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get. I'm sorry if people seem to feel that just because it is on the net it is free. But, then again, I'm sure they would change their mind if I found their address and then stole their car, and then in my defense claimed that "its on the net, and anyay, car companys charge *WAAAY* too much for automobiles, so I'm justified".
Please.. theft is theft, and until the laws change, it WILL be theft.
this isnt civil disobedience, this is people who dont want to pay for what they get.
>I wouldn't want a site on quantum mechanics to be reviewed by someone who hasn't evne taken a introductory physics class in college
True, but also: I would rather have a number of people OUTSIDE of that field review it as well.. for the opposite reason of what happens when the aforementioned author (TV Guide, frinstance) writes a story "all about the internet" (which is clueless) or when JonKatz writes a story professing to tell me what I should believe is the great evil in the world.. i want multiple opinions.. something reviewed only by their peers in the same field will inevitably turn out to be slanted, or the reviews will.. review by the common man AND their peers will turn out something with valid criticisms.
The example Im thinking of is a science book written by a brilliant, yet socially and writing-clueless scientist.. other scientists may understand exactly what he's talking about, but, in most "media" cases, the layman SHOULD be able to get some factual information out of it as well, not just get glassy eyed staring at jargon and buzzwords.
(read that part carefully, jonkatz..this means YOU)
Open Media is a nice idea, BUT: as far as the internet goes, anyone who can code HTML can open up an "information site".. the problem comes in checkign one's sources, in the believability.. I can find sites on the net that are as stable and pretty as slashdot, yet talk only about the fact that life exists on mars, built pyramids, and seeded the earth for food production (us).
There is no standard for comparison on the net.. ANYONES ideas/ideals/wacko beliefs are "correct" and its increasingly difficult to lump together things that share the same root to get differing opinion.
It used to be you went to a library, or book store, and looked up "Religion" and had 40 or 50 books staring you in the face which you could read, contrast, etc, most of them by authors that at least had SOME form of editing or review before they wrote that book. But if you look up "religion" in Webcrawler, etc, you get a bewildering number of hits, that no human could access and adequately cross reference in a reasonable time frame. Then add the fact that fully half these hits are personal opinion, or oneline blurbs on a web page, and you find out WHY open media is going to take a long time to get where you want it (and I want it) to go.
The means is there.. what we need is a standard of some sort.. maybe a volunteer review board who look over stuff and put a stamp of approval on it.. sort of like the ratings system here... I am able to read the -2 posts, but why would I want to? I trust my fellow/.ers to be responsible about their moderation, and have very seldom been let down by this.
I do agree though, its time for the 1% of the people who own 90% of the worlds media outlets to stop telling me who the best candidate is, what I should eat for my own good, and why I should consider myself a monster for not crying over their "child in danger" piece of the week. Nothing annoys me more than a blow dried news anchor or rolling stone author talking down to me about computers, or anything else I can almost guarantee I know more about than they do. The Media is currently written for 8 year olds, and that HAS to change.
Come ON man.. in the words of my man Biafra.. 'If you want a bananna republic so bad why dont you go move to one?"
America.. yeah.. were SO repressive of anyone who looks different. Sure.. I spent six years with a three foot Mohawk of varying colors and shapes and I was SOOO repressed.. guess what? During that time I got a job at.. (guess where?) McDonalds. And, truth be told, so did about half the workforce in the US.. come on.. if you want to rail at american industry, take on a company that actually has some of the views you claim they have. Fast Food in particular will hire any warm body that can listen for a beeper on a fry vat, and they dont particularly care what they look, sound, or think like.
Keep in mind.. those who think a job at McDonalds should support a family of five on a forty hour paycheck are a bit confused. That job, like a lot of others, is *entry level*.. that means "here you learn to work, you dont learn to get rich"*
Please.. dont tell me America throws people who think differently in prison.. we actually REWARD those who think differently.. its called affirmative action and making laws that actually hurt the "normal" people in favor of those who are fringe elements and just happen to have a lobbying body.
Sorry jon.. but this idiot doesnt deserve the "penguin" award.. this guy deserves the "herring" award.. I dont think it is a good idea to reward someone for destroying something that isnt his to destroy. Lets hope he gets the five years he could, and learns his lesson.
Katz has done it again.. he took a simple premise, made it chicken little all over again, and ran with it.. (and ran and ran and ran).
A few points I took exception to:
1) the US and/or Canada are probably the BEST countries to handle this, at least we have SOME form of ethics in our medical industries..who would you rather see, John? India? China? one of the "other" countries that the Big Bad US has had downtrodden for years? Is this an actual concern about ethics and standards, or are you just ranting on the US cause you can?
2) One point off for gratuitous use of Bloom County material.. are you talking about babies, or are you talking about a Basselope?
3) again, you are assuming too much.. so the map is done.. the moon was walked on 30 years ago too, and there arent cities of glass up there, which your predecessors in the press ALSO ran screaming about, claiming the downfall of humanity had now been discovered, as evil people set up housekeeping there free from the earthly bonds of legality.
It's unlikely that this will offer any real changes within our lifetimes.. just because we can figure out the map doesnt mean we know how to get anywhere with it.. we know how the brain works now, mostly, and yet HAL doesnt exist.
Stop screaming and yelling, and look at the positive side.. and Im quite sure you wouldn't complain about a little medical manipulation if you knew that your 2 week old foetus could be cured of its spina bifida, or severe retardation, before birth, by the use of some of the things that we have now discovered. I know I would.
4) do you REALLY think that family intended to bring that many children into the world? Fertility drugs are an iffy question, but I cannot see ANYONE rationally deciding that 6,7 or 8 mouths to feed are better than one.
(for more clarification, see the Simpsons episode where Apu's wife gets pregnant.)
Well, enough out of me.. discuss amongst yourselves.:)
Sounds like a very interesting platform to base a narrative on.. I will be interested to read it!
Gonna get right out there and pick me up a copy!
I think that the juxtaposition of two cultures has not really been done as well as it could be done, with the possible exception of "juxtaposition" by Piers Anthony, and the Star Bellied Sneeches book by Seuss.. but I think these books DO carry something that happens to us every day, but no-one gives much thought to.
You come out if high school and/or college, where jeans and t-shirts were the norm, the social mores, to use that term, and suddenly you are in a world where you may well be judged more heavily by the polish on your shoes than by how well you can do your job.
It is interesting that the people in power, (at least in the companys I have worked for), the ones who actually KNOW what you do seem to have no control over how far you progress, and the people who control how far you progress can only spout lame reviews like "well.. I see you wore jeans one day last year" and "now.. about the bumper stickers on your car.. we really dont feel they portray the company attitude". Never do I hear from a top level manager or anyone with "VP" in their name "thanks for keeping that system up last month" etc...
And I think this is the kind of juxtaposition that should be explored.. it happens to most of us at one point or another, yet I dont recall being warned in school, that its not how well you do your job, in most cases, its how well the clueless people PERCIEVE you to be doing your job that matters. *sigh*
When I need to know who is playing at the local clubs, I read the newspaper. When I want to read a column by our local troublemaker, I read the newspaper. When I want to know who to vote for, I read the newspaper, and then go OPPOSITE what they endorse.
I also read the newspaper to get an EXCEPTIONALLY biased slant on what is going on in the world, and to find out who has died recently.
Cant forget the funny papers either!
I usually find myself reading the article, then going online to find out the actual truth about what is happening.. (you should see the spin that the library flap in Holland MI is getting here.. "horrible people want your children to see porn at the library! Filters are GOOD things! " etc.. not one mention of any of the things I find online about the fallacies, or the agenda of the "sainted" AFA.. (dont sniff that flower Mighty Mouse.. thats OBVIOUSLY a cocaine reference..)
So yeah, I read papers.. its whether or not I believe them that is in question, and in most cases, I dont.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm.. Jon?
A few *more* points on this:
YOu state that the generational gap appeared in the 60's when the younger generation turned it's back on it's parents. YOu seem to be forgetting one important point here.
VIETNAM! "young people" were turning thier backs because that older generation was drawing them by birthdate to send them into a meat grinder from which they likely wouldnt return for a cause they didn't believe in. That is a much greater stimulus for rebellion than a video game.
Another thing to remember, that which is credited for the "change".. rock and roll, drugs, the tune in-turn on-drop out TV culture.. co-evolved over the previous ten years, and became a tool for them to use in their rebellion.
However, they *were* rebelling against something specific.. a very real fear and chance that they might be chosen by the bean counters to die.. rather than not being allowed to have a game, or not being allowed to have the credit card to go to the mall. There is a world of difference here.
At 31 years old, all I can say is my generation and the ones closely following it are in a unique situation.. we have never seen a war in which anyone who didnt *want* to go had to go... that is a galvanizing thing that most young people today dont realize, and cannot imagine. But I think that if it came to that point, (and it well could, viewing the middle east right now) I think Video Games would be the *last* form of rebellion or back turning going on.. overthrowing the government would be much more likely.
I think my generation and those slightly younger are actually bright enough to realize that they dont *have* to follow the rules if they dont want to, and that is not the influence of games or movies, it is the influence of everyday life.. how many times does one have to see a high profile celeb or politician slide on charges that someone you know has gotten hung on before one realizes that it is possible to say "screw the system" and make it stick?
Maeryk
I dont think it is getting any *more* violent.. after all.. violence has existed since the dawn of time. (OG discovers a rock is harder than OOG's skull.) The disturbing thing, to me, is the paralells one can draw between this civilization and it's "entertainment" now, and Rome, or Greece, or France right before the Revolution. (Or Japan, Germany,.. you can find a paralell just about anywhere). The problem I see, to use Rome as an example.. the more violent the games got, to the point where women were forced to kill their children, where people were stuck in an iron bull and bets were taken on how long it took them to stop kicking and screaming after a fire was built.. etc.. built a catharsis in their society.. always looking for a bigger kick. Not that I think for a minute that someone playing Doom is going to get a *real* shotgun.. but they will keep looking for a bigger, better game. This is touchy then, at what age they are exposed to them. An adult, or a 17 year old, is much better suited to discern and to control their impulses about gameplay or reality than, say, a 7 year old.
The more violence is accepted in film, games, TV, etc, the more people are inclined to accept it in every day life, as it paralells, and the human mind doesnt necessarily discern it when its in the background. Whether this is good or bad, I dont know.. and I dont pretend to know.. but if you look at the historical trends in other past cultures, it tends to snowball to a point and then go *POP* loudly. (Of course, no democracy has ever lasted very long anyway, and we are about at the end of the projected lifespan.. so we shall see, eh?)
Just my two cents..
Maeryk
1) Gaming is not entirely viewed as bad.. Myst was never accused of being violent!
2)This was *NOT* central to the presidential election, anymore than the health concerns in Rwanda was. PLEASE Katz! Stop turning a single media reference into War of the Worlds! Liebermans crew want to stop TV.. and the "furor" during the campaigns was about movie ratings, and how they screened films, *NOT* about games. Basically, with the price of games and the price of game level systems, especially on the PC, (which are the *most* violent games) few people under 18 are getting them without their parents knowledge anyway, and anyone over 18 is out of the hands of the gubmint censors in that arena.
You are trying *WAYYY* to hard to tie this to hellmouth.. its not going to work.. I'm really starting to get sick and tired of "Waaah.. I'm a misunderstood genius, Waaaah.. they pick on me cuz I'm a geek, WAaaaah.. they are mean to me at school so I'm gonna blow it up" crap.. GET OVER IT! Most of us went through it.. and where are we now? In IT.. where are "they"? Would you like fries with that?
Cmon.. video games are *not* the world changer you are trying to make them be!
Maeryk
That he has not clue one about culture, life, or much of anything actually. You say "up down up down left right" to me and I'm going to think you are some kind of line dancing idiot. And I'm "any male his age"..
ARGHH! Will someone get JonKatz a *REAL* job? PLEASE? Let him see what it is actually like in the world?
To keep this on topic: 10 years ago he would have been saying exactly the same thing about records.. remember the panic about record labeling, etc? And in 10 years it will be something totally different.. I am very leary of "more than any other thing in today's society.." If anything, Video Games are less important that TV.. look at MTV's influence on the elections.. and on voter registration.. look at how many people use Leno and Letterman monologues to interpret the news. Hell, look at most (not all) people my age.. (late twenties) and realize that they have the attention spans of gnats, and run like sheep to the hottest new thing, without thinking for a moment *WHY* they are doing it! Video games are pervasive right now only because they are "hip" and they are a tool to prove your superiority.. "I have a PS/2, you only have Dreamcast, loser".. its like those stupid razor scooters people are buying in droves, and 4000 dollar mountain bikes two years ago.. its a fad, its a status symbol, and it's instant chic.. and not much else.
thats my story, and I'm stickin to it.
Buddhist or early native american stuff? After all, the Fylfot (swastika) was used a heck of a lot by a heck of a lot of people (still is, in some buddhist areas) long before Dolf baby got ahold of it. Wonder if they ban that too, on the grounds that it contains an offensive symbol? (I can show you older churches on the US east coast where it is still in the tilework as decorative bordering).
The French.. Le SIGH!
Because people online can legally get away with use of things.. copyrighted material, services, phone use,etc, that they would normally have to pay for, and are now *being* asked to pay for, we are a selfish and intolerant bunch?
HUH? Sorry.. but the ones yelling and screaming about Napster going away are *NOT* the techno savvy geeks out there that this is aimed at. We have all moved on to other, less known, and unstoppable (for now) ways to get our MP3. We will always find ways to skirt the system. Again, this isnt necessarily morally correct. I mean, if I climb an electric pole and do my own hookup, will I scream if they find out and try to charge me for the electricity? No, because I knew that was a possiblity when I did it.
I think there is a problem when just because people could get away with it, it apparently sets a precedent that is later used as justification. I mean, the guy who wrote PKZIP put it out as shareware.. just because you *COULD* use it for free forever doesnt mean you *SHOULD* use it for free forever.
Basically, there are end results for every action.. I dont think we are Selfish, Intolerant, or non-politically active. Face it Katz, most of us have too much to do to head to Washington and join the great unwashed in the million chiphead march on the mall. We would rather use our right to vote, our right to inform, and our right to influence to see the people *IN* those positions changed.
lets face it.. who opens more eyes and ears and gets a better reception? THe screaming sweating mob that gets a two minute blurb on the evening news in DC, or the group that puts up an attractive web-page explaining their views and *WHY* their views are superior, and makes sure lots and lots of people see it?
I'll admit.. I am kind of scared when I search for MPAA or DMCA and get porn pages listed in the hits *before* I get to a page with actual content about what I'm looking for.. but that just goes to show.. the things that *make* money do better. Until that changes, unfortunately, we are still going to be fighting an uphill battle, and instead of whining about it or decrying it as unfair, we must educate ourselves and each other on how to *fight* it legally. (and no, I dont mean burning a million copies of Metallicas last great album and sending them out to people.. I mean getting representation in court.. A LA 2600.)
Maeryk
***Please keep in mind, that we're talking about a possible copyright infringment. Not theft. They are 2 completely different things. And not only that, but the law is being reviewed and rewritten now for copyrights. So you might as well wait see what the law actually SAYS before you start pointing fingers.***
AFAIK, it is already illegal.. it is illegal by the DMCA to make a digital copy of something. Period. So somewhere along the line, someone did that, and broke the law. If you transmit or recieve that, without the artist specific consent, you are what, aiding and abetting? an accessory? something, anyway. Granted.. some artists freely release their work via the web. (Beastie Boys, etc) BUT: other artist do not. My giving a digital copy of a Metallica CD to someone is, tecnically, illegal. Or I misread the law. As it stands now tho, I dont think it is legal.
OTOH: I think it is ridiculous to say "You can copy a CD to tape to listen to in your car, but you cannot copy it to a CD to listen to in your car, or on your PC so you dont have to take the CD off the shelf.".. thats just silly.. I think personal use copyrights should exist. once I pay the personal use royalty on a song, if I make 0, 1, or a billion copies of a song, as long as I am not redistributing them, I should be fine. (I did have someone argue that if I got the CD stolen, any MP3's I had should be removed, and I would have to RE-BUY the CD to get new copies, as the copyright follows the item, not the purchase.)
But, my point is, if you buy a car illegaly, you bought it illegaly.. when someone has something that is worth money, or is traditionally paid for, and you get it for free against their wishes and against the law, you are stealing. By transmitting copies of Metallica songs, (frinstance) you are stealing from Metallica, who would normally charge a royalty fee for it. I dont see what is so hard to understand about that.
I will use the same analogy I used in another post.. if you invent something, and copyright it, and I start making them and give them away for free, thereby taking away *YOUR* source of income, I suspect you would consider it stealing, not merely a "copyright infringement".
Maeryk
Apples and oranges. Music is not an *idea*. I would agree if you heard someone hum something, and then made a song out of it. What you are talking about is not what I am talking about. Music is something that has been produced, it is a product.. and that comes at a cost. Millions of dollars worth of cost, in some instances. The end product, the song, is sold at a "fair market price" (IE: what the people will pay for it) in an attempt to recoup some of those losses. Its not right, moral, or just, to say "because I can copy this, and Im not physically removing it from the artist, its okay."
Which only proves that it is *okay* as long as someone elses ox is getting gored. I suspect that if you came up with something you could make good solid money on, and that was your livelihood, then you would feel differently when someone started taking your livelihood away and simply called you a "fucking whiner" for wanting some recompense for the hours and hours of work you put into developing it in the first place.
maeryk
**you are actually incorrect. That was a payment to the MODEL, not to the copyright holder of the picture. The model could have gotten a per-publication royalty, but generally they don't. In that sense, they would be the same as a studio musician, in that the musician gets paid a fixed amount to show up and play for a day on the recording, and that's it as far as the musician goes. A studio musician is not considered an "artist" so much as a worker.**
Okay.. Im interested now..please enlighten me. When I buy software, a record, a (whatever) its right there in plain print on the sleeve or box or somewhere what "fair use" of that is. However, a picture I find in a newsgroup has no such information on it. I snap a picture with my quickcam of my Pirhana swimming happily in his tank, and post it to rec.fish.with.big.teeth, and later find that same picture on some dudes webpage, do I have any legal recourse? Is a disclaimer of some sort required? That was the basis of my argument.. I understand that there *are* copyrighted images... there are also a heck of a lot that *arent* copyrighted in any verifiable way. Is a copyright implied and automatic? I see a lot of pages where someone has "Copyright, Dave Jones, 1963" on a picture, but I suspect that would be impossible to prove.
Am I correct? how does this work?
Thanks for your input!
maeryk
So, what you are saying, is that if you invent something, and I see it and start copying it, you are losing nothing? That is the best analogy I can think of to this.. you are saying "its okay for me to copy something you made, as long as I dont make any money off of it.. and thereby deprive *you* of revenue, because you *DO* make money off of it"?
That is your point, is it not?
Maeryk
Is it? How? Pictures are copyrighted also.
Heh..yes.. I thought about this after I posted it and realized it was not that good a point.. what I was thinking of was how music usually endures.. a CD worth 17.99 this month is worth 17.99 (market) in five years.. and the artist is *theoretically* getting royalties off of this. However, in the case of the kind of pictures you find on the internet, (read pr0n) they are either a) one time modeling payments, and therefore paid for at the beginning, or b) public domain or uncopyrighted that some twit put on a website for 19.99 a month (recurring charges unless you unsubscribe at midnight during a full moon while wearing otter-fur underwear) and are therefore *claiming* a copyright that doesnt exist, or that they entirely made up.
But, the main point I was trying to make was, **theoretically** at least, as long as the album keeps selling, they artist keeps getting money. If that is *NOT* the case, then the artist should have argued their contract a little better at the get go, which is no-one but the ARTISTS fault.. its not the fault of the record industry, they simply keep on gettin away with what they can get away with.. if all the artists went "Uh.. NO.. " then it would change. Welcome to a free market society folks.. where the end user *can* dictate policy.
maeryk
**Depriving someone of the use of something they own. Copying an mp3 doesn't deprive anyone of the use of it, therefore it isn't theft**
Thou art mistaken, M'lord.. if you go to a consignment store, and take something out of the store that they dont own, but are merely holding, you are stealing from that store. You are depriving someone of royalties when you download their music without paying the appropriate fees.. whether or not you choose to admit it. Music costs money.. everywhere you hear it. One of Katz' first pieces was about "free music" that you hear.. he wasnt totally right.. if you hear music in an elevator, a hotel lobby, a grocery store, etc, more than likely that place has *PAID* for the right to use/broadcast this music over their loudspeakers. (legally, they are supposed to). So music isnt free.. someone is *giving* that music to you in that case. But if you just rip it off the net, it is theft, plain and simple. If you dont like it, get the laws changed.. but as of now, its theft.
Maeryk,
*BUZZWORD CREATION IN PROGRESS**
.Jpg's and .gif's to be posted, because they are typically a one time payment to the model/artist, but its *totally* different to post a song that is a retail commodity. As I said in another post.. as soon as you put your books up in .pdf format, so I dont have to buy them, I will start to accept that you believe what you claim to believe.
Oh PLEASE.. what "free culture"? There is *NO* "free culture". Unless you are running around the back alleys of a city at midnight with a gun, nothing is "free". You pay for everything, one way or another.
Katz. Im really starting to get tired of your incessant whining that the 'net should be a communistic place. Its one thing for
People arent being "branded" theives.. people are BEING theives. Copyrights exist to protect the creator as much as to spur them on to create new works. Sorry, but its true. And what spurs musicians on to create? for some, the sheer love of making music, for others, the sheer love of folding green. Sorry dude, but I'm not going to spend 10 months writing and recording songs, just to have some jackass on the net tell me it should be "free" simply because it can be transmitted by PC. That is theft, plain and simple, and theres no real argument about it. The law states that if you make a digital copy of music, and distribute it, you are a criminal. Course, it also says if you drive over the state speed limit you are a criminal. The difference is that some crimes just arent prosecuted, and so far, this is one of them.
Doesnt make it any more right.
As far as making it "free".. well, we saw how well that worked with shareware. *sigh* I have actually sent money for programs I like... because I'm honest like that.. but in today's society, of coroporate raiding and clawing ones way to the top, I can certainly see where I would be a minority.
I think you just really *REALLY* need to admit that you want to be a communist when you grow up, and stop using "culture" as a brand to mark it with. Its not "culture" its "how much can I get away with".. which, IMHO, is less culture, and more counter-culture.
Maeryk
Two Live Crew wasnt banned, they were (partly) the instigation for the "record labeling flap" by the Second Lady Tipper Gore. *boo hiss*.
Basically, what they got them on was obscenity charges, if I remember correctly, and the fact that cursing in the open in certain places they played was against the laws of that municipality.
I do understand that your TV stations are a *lot* more relaxed about what they can broadcast, than even our non-premium cable stations are, but we dont have "content" laws governing our radio here. We do have obsenity law, and I'm not sure which I prefer.
Im not trying to put down Canada, by any means, I'm just trying to say there are two sides to every coin.
I know that the Bare Naked Ladies werent allowed to play at one of the huge arenas in Toronto because of their name alone. (though Im sure it was the owners of the arena.. Air Canada, I think, who pushed it, not GMTA or anything.)
Maeryk
Yes, but in Canada they also censor albums outright. Check out GWAR's latest release here and in Canada..you will notice a pretty staggering difference. This is the difference between them and us.. they actually take stuff OFF the liner and OFF the album before it is legal to sell.. we just slap a sticker on it to warn parents against it and to draw badass billy rebel *to* it.
Thanks.. I'd rather deal with a few crappy songs than having Il Duce choose my music for me.
Maeryk
....The RIAA wants to have complete control over what people hear. They don't want people to know there are mucisians who don't use their distribution channels. And anything that may threaten these efforts is deemed worthy of destruction. It's the same with MPAA....
Oh lord.. now the RIAA is big brother? look! quick! theres a republican behind every bush and under every bed!.
IT boils down to one thing.. M-O-N-E-Y. The RIAA is not going to spend hella money on promo-ing a band that isnt going to make a lot. BUT: the RIAA is *not* stopping, nor could they stop, a band from putting their *OWN* music up, (assuming its a non RIAA band.).
ON the Blockbuster front, what do you expect them to do? PAY the 70 bucks they pay for a new release that no-one will ever rent and then lose valuable shelf space and revenue? Or give that space to another three copys of "american beauty" which will get rented out so much it wears out?
Cmon.. its supply and demand. The supply is the RIAA (or blockbuster) and the Demand is what we arent doing. If we all stop BUYING Cd's for 18 bucks, if we all start DEMANDING movies at rental houses, etc, then things will change. Until then, stealing is *NOT* The answer.
I'm reminded of the old Minor Threat records when the album said "cost.. 5.99 if it is marked up, STEAL THIS RECORD" to stop just that sort of thing. Ian sold it for 6 bucks.. others would re-sell, (or buy dozens of new ones, ship them to Cali, and resell for 25 bucks each) thus ripping the artist off. *WE* have the power.. but the lemmings of the world will see to it that we *DONT* get to exercise it, because they are the MTV generation, and belly buttons and brittney sell records to pud pounding teenagers to fuel their lil fantasies.
That is basically the truth, as I see it.
Maeryk
...Let's leave the artist out of the argument. He's getting screwed out of his work regardless. I'd be in favor of paying for the MP3's that I download from Napster if I knew that it was actually going to the artist, but it isn't, not much of it anyway...
So now, due to the artists inability to negotiate a contract with his record company that he is actually okay with, its okay to steal from the record companys?
Gee.. I offered Dodge 45 bucks for a new viper, but they told me I couldnt have it.. so I stole it.. its fair anyway, cause everyone KNOWS that car companys and dealers jack up prices.
...Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it sounds like you think that those royalties go straight to the musicians. It doesn't. A recording contract is a work for hire that is the artist records the music and it becomes the sole property of the record company. The royalties are paid to the record company and if it is included in the contract, a fraction of that amount is paid to the artist...
You are at least partially wrong on one count that I know of. When Bad Religion/Epitaph records got picked up by a major label, they retained rights to the entire catalog, as WELL as negotiating it into the contract that that major label must distribute Epitaph bands *EVERYWHERE* they sell their mainstream music. Its more the fault of dumb lawyers and musicians looking for a get rick quick or a quick payoff than anything else.
Do It Yourself music has been around for years.. (Alternative Tentacles, Minor Threat, most punk bands) and it *WORKS*.. (look at the Misfits, for an example). So anyone who claims that the record industry is "screwing the musician" is only seeing part of the story. The fact of the matter is, the person getting screwed here is the audience. Do you *REALLY* think that that CD is worth 17 or 18 dollars? How about those Depeche Mode CD's that are a million years old, that arent being advertised, or promo'd, but now cost more (re-released) than the originals cost? WHY ARE WE BUYING THEM? if we only paid 5 bucks for a new CD, the record company would *STILL* be contractually obligated to pay the musicians up front.. getting them their money. And maybe I wouldnt have to put up with the Back Door BOys on every channel on TV for months at a shot.
Basically, the RIAA is trying to protect its financial interests.. not the musicians. Lars said on day one "this isnt about money, its about morals".
Maeryk
>>Don't think that this is about piracy. If that were the case they would have gone after radio stations a long time ago. If these guys win I could see them creating their own Napster with inferior MP3s of only the songs that they want to promote, geared solely to get you to buy those one-hit-wonder CDs
Sorry chief, but Radio pays royalties to be able to play music on the air. The stations are also federally regulated, paying taxes on their advertising revenue, etc. This is a far far cry from Napster, where anything, released or not, can be gotten from someone who takes the time to rip a copy of it.
You are comparing apples to Orangutans here, and the two just dont work together.
Maeryk
So, basically, what you are saying, is that the "consumers" (read: thiefs) have some important legal rights here. WHAT RIGHTS? the right to rip off someone who spent many thousands of dollars to create music? the right to steal a film that cost Lucas 40 MILLION dollars to make, without having to pay a royalty fee?
.pdf format for people to download and print, and hey, even bind into hard copy. Is the person who wrote that book going to get their knickers in a knot? yeah. is the book company that is using that 70% cut of the retail price going to suffer directly? Probably not. However, when it comes time for the advances for the next book, or for the company to dump some money on a very good, but as-yet-unknown author with no portfolio, are they going to? Probably not.
I can see the arguments about having your own backup copy of music you own.. and I dont think there should be a distinction between digital or analog reproduction FOR YOUR OWN USE. But the main fact of the matter is that IF ITS COPYRIGHTED MUSIC ITS BEING STOLEN. period. End of discussion.
Heres a frinstance: I find a book by a long winded, boring, windbag, that usually sells for about 30 bucks on the open market, and I scan it into
This is a retail society.. you get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get. I'm sorry if people seem to feel that just because it is on the net it is free. But, then again, I'm sure they would change their mind if I found their address and then stole their car, and then in my defense claimed that "its on the net, and anyay, car companys charge *WAAAY* too much for automobiles, so I'm justified".
Please.. theft is theft, and until the laws change, it WILL be theft.
this isnt civil disobedience, this is people who dont want to pay for what they get.
Maeryk
>I wouldn't want a site on quantum mechanics to be reviewed by someone who hasn't evne taken a introductory physics class in college
True, but also: I would rather have a number of people OUTSIDE of that field review it as well.. for the opposite reason of what happens when the aforementioned author (TV Guide, frinstance) writes a story "all about the internet" (which is clueless) or when JonKatz writes a story professing to tell me what I should believe is the great evil in the world.. i want multiple opinions.. something reviewed only by their peers in the same field will inevitably turn out to be slanted, or the reviews will.. review by the common man AND their peers will turn out something with valid criticisms.
The example Im thinking of is a science book written by a brilliant, yet socially and writing-clueless scientist.. other scientists may understand exactly what he's talking about, but, in most "media" cases, the layman SHOULD be able to get some factual information out of it as well, not just get glassy eyed staring at jargon and buzzwords.
(read that part carefully, jonkatz..this means YOU)
Maeryk
Open Media is a nice idea, BUT: as far as the internet goes, anyone who can code HTML can open up an "information site".. the problem comes in checkign one's sources, in the believability.. I can find sites on the net that are as stable and pretty as slashdot, yet talk only about the fact that life exists on mars, built pyramids, and seeded the earth for food production (us).
/.ers to be responsible about their moderation, and have very seldom been let down by this.
There is no standard for comparison on the net.. ANYONES ideas/ideals/wacko beliefs are "correct" and its increasingly difficult to lump together things that share the same root to get differing opinion.
It used to be you went to a library, or book store, and looked up "Religion" and had 40 or 50 books staring you in the face which you could read, contrast, etc, most of them by authors that at least had SOME form of editing or review before they wrote that book. But if you look up "religion" in Webcrawler, etc, you get a bewildering number of hits, that no human could access and adequately cross reference in a reasonable time frame. Then add the fact that fully half these hits are personal opinion, or oneline blurbs on a web page, and you find out WHY open media is going to take a long time to get where you want it (and I want it) to go.
The means is there.. what we need is a standard of some sort.. maybe a volunteer review board who look over stuff and put a stamp of approval on it.. sort of like the ratings system here... I am able to read the -2 posts, but why would I want to? I trust my fellow
I do agree though, its time for the 1% of the people who own 90% of the worlds media outlets to stop telling me who the best candidate is, what I should eat for my own good, and why I should consider myself a monster for not crying over their "child in danger" piece of the week. Nothing annoys me more than a blow dried news anchor or rolling stone author talking down to me about computers, or anything else I can almost guarantee I know more about than they do. The Media is currently written for 8 year olds, and that HAS to change.
maeryk
Come ON man.. in the words of my man Biafra.. 'If you want a bananna republic so bad why dont you go move to one?"
America.. yeah.. were SO repressive of anyone who looks different. Sure.. I spent six years with a three foot Mohawk of varying colors and shapes and I was SOOO repressed.. guess what? During that time I got a job at.. (guess where?) McDonalds. And, truth be told, so did about half the workforce in the US.. come on.. if you want to rail at american industry, take on a company that actually has some of the views you claim they have. Fast Food in particular will hire any warm body that can listen for a beeper on a fry vat, and they dont particularly care what they look, sound, or think like.
Keep in mind.. those who think a job at McDonalds should support a family of five on a forty hour paycheck are a bit confused. That job, like a lot of others, is *entry level*.. that means "here you learn to work, you dont learn to get rich"*
Please.. dont tell me America throws people who think differently in prison.. we actually REWARD those who think differently.. its called affirmative action and making laws that actually hurt the "normal" people in favor of those who are fringe elements and just happen to have a lobbying body.
Sorry jon.. but this idiot doesnt deserve the "penguin" award.. this guy deserves the "herring" award.. I dont think it is a good idea to reward someone for destroying something that isnt his to destroy. Lets hope he gets the five years he could, and learns his lesson.
Maeryk
Katz has done it again.. he took a simple premise, made it chicken little all over again, and ran with it.. (and ran and ran and ran).
:)
A few points I took exception to:
1) the US and/or Canada are probably the BEST countries to handle this, at least we have SOME form of ethics in our medical industries..who would you rather see, John? India? China? one of the "other" countries that the Big Bad US has had downtrodden for years? Is this an actual concern about ethics and standards, or are you just ranting on the US cause you can?
2) One point off for gratuitous use of Bloom County material.. are you talking about babies, or are you talking about a Basselope?
3) again, you are assuming too much.. so the map is done.. the moon was walked on 30 years ago too, and there arent cities of glass up there, which your predecessors in the press ALSO ran screaming about, claiming the downfall of humanity had now been discovered, as evil people set up housekeeping there free from the earthly bonds of legality.
It's unlikely that this will offer any real changes within our lifetimes.. just because we can figure out the map doesnt mean we know how to get anywhere with it.. we know how the brain works now, mostly, and yet HAL doesnt exist.
Stop screaming and yelling, and look at the positive side.. and Im quite sure you wouldn't complain about a little medical manipulation if you knew that your 2 week old foetus could be cured of its spina bifida, or severe retardation, before birth, by the use of some of the things that we have now discovered. I know I would.
4) do you REALLY think that family intended to bring that many children into the world? Fertility drugs are an iffy question, but I cannot see ANYONE rationally deciding that 6,7 or 8 mouths to feed are better than one.
(for more clarification, see the Simpsons episode where Apu's wife gets pregnant.)
Well, enough out of me.. discuss amongst yourselves.
as always.. I remain Maeryk
maeryk@rcn.com
Sounds like a very interesting platform to base a narrative on.. I will be interested to read it!
Gonna get right out there and pick me up a copy!
I think that the juxtaposition of two cultures has not really been done as well as it could be done, with the possible exception of "juxtaposition" by Piers Anthony, and the Star Bellied Sneeches book by Seuss.. but I think these books DO carry something that happens to us every day, but no-one gives much thought to.
You come out if high school and/or college, where jeans and t-shirts were the norm, the social mores, to use that term, and suddenly you are in a world where you may well be judged more heavily by the polish on your shoes than by how well you can do your job.
It is interesting that the people in power, (at least in the companys I have worked for), the ones who actually KNOW what you do seem to have no control over how far you progress, and the people who control how far you progress can only spout lame reviews like "well.. I see you wore jeans one day last year" and "now.. about the bumper stickers on your car.. we really dont feel they portray the company attitude". Never do I hear from a top level manager or anyone with "VP" in their name "thanks for keeping that system up last month" etc...
And I think this is the kind of juxtaposition that should be explored.. it happens to most of us at one point or another, yet I dont recall being warned in school, that its not how well you do your job, in most cases, its how well the clueless people PERCIEVE you to be doing your job that matters. *sigh*
questions? comments? FLAMES?
Maeryk
When I need to know who is playing at the local clubs, I read the newspaper. When I want to read a column by our local troublemaker, I read the newspaper. When I want to know who to vote for, I read the newspaper, and then go OPPOSITE what they endorse.
I also read the newspaper to get an EXCEPTIONALLY biased slant on what is going on in the world, and to find out who has died recently.
Cant forget the funny papers either!
I usually find myself reading the article, then going online to find out the actual truth about what is happening.. (you should see the spin that the library flap in Holland MI is getting here.. "horrible people want your children to see porn at the library! Filters are GOOD things! " etc.. not one mention of any of the things I find online about the fallacies, or the agenda of the "sainted" AFA.. (dont sniff that flower Mighty Mouse.. thats OBVIOUSLY a cocaine reference..)
So yeah, I read papers.. its whether or not I believe them that is in question, and in most cases, I dont.
Maeryk