Now I need the same to happen to sports stars and I'll be happy. NOBODY is worth millions of dollars/pounds...
I was right with you until this point.
The definition of what something is worth is what someone else will pay... hence, these sports stars are in fact worth the millions they are
paid.
This is a pure economic equation: The sport franchise only needs N players* and they have revenue of R. Roughly speaking, the owner of the team is willing to pay "(R - other-expense) / N" per player.
...and I'm sure the fans would love to knock 60% off the already inflated ticket prices.
Again, basic economics disagrees with you: there are N seats in the arena and G games. They can't manufacture more, so they are trying to determine the maximum price to sell N * G tickets each season. If you find the price steep that simply means that N * G people** in your area value tickets more than you do.
On a related note, this is why movie stars get paid so much: the movie only needs one star and the production company expects to be able to make millions in revenue, and the belief that certain actors will generate greater revenue. Contrast with stage actors who don't get paid millions due to the limited income on a nightly basis. The important fact out of this is that we don't have to worry that without copyright acting will die. Tom Cruise, on the other hand will have to choose between not working, working as an actor for a lot less, or finding alternate employment.
* For most businesses when they have extra money they can hire more people to try to do more of whatever they do. For a sports franchise they are prohibited from hiring more people, so they instead start to bid more for the better talent, driving the price per person up. ** Where some people value it so much that they purchase multiple games up to and including season's pass.
My HTC Magic renders/. perfectly - the browser even sticks* and fits** the comments onto the screen-size. Sounds like it may be time to get a better phone if you're intent on surfing...
*by this I mean that in the nesting of comments I need to move slightly to the right to see the next comment, and as I slide it "sticks" when the comment is fully (width-wise) inside the screen. **by this I mean that to read a comment I don't ever need to scroll left/right as I'm reading (just up/down) even though the whole page is wider than my screen.
Yes, if your goal is to maximize the line-count of your software.
Even Big Bloat Inc gets it: "Measuring software productivity by lines of code is like measuring progress on an airplane by how much it weighs."- Bill Gates
Chimps don't look very tasty, so I don't think People Eating Tasty Animals would get upset about some chimps in space... then again I've never tried one. Is there a sauce or side-dish they're particularly good with?
If you're on the fence as to the usefulness of patents to society, this book (pdf) will probably push you off the fence.
Patents may have been conceived as a way to increase innovation, but they have become a way to consolidate wealth to a few people at the expense of the public. And ultimately that is why there is such strong support for them: the rich want to stay rich. And as long as the rich control the laws instead of science, reason and public interest patents are not going anywhere...
So we have more camera surveillance than anywhere else.
if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. --Standard Overlord Answer book, revision 1, chapter 1, page 1, paragraph 1.
Why are we helping a business model that doesn't work and is being flogged to death.
the model worked for decades: it's the damn pirates that broke it. --Standard Overlord Answer book, revision 13, chapter 12.
UK industry used to be innovative and groundbreaking. Now instead of encouraging evolution of business, we are actively saying we will help you keep your outdated methods and kick the people who innovate.
Innovation is hard work. It really is. You have to keep doing it (like a job!) to keep getting paid.
It's much easier to spend some profits from a previous quarter to legislate future profit guarantees. This isn't new (like extending copyright which serves no purpose other than to enrich the current copyright owners), it's just either more widespread, or easier for the average/.er to notice thanks to the pervasive flow of information... or maybe both. In economic terms it is said that "that which you reward, you encourage".
The only friend a business has is money. You are not and will never be their friend. Successful businesses externalize costs: getting "free" source code is such an externalization. They will not willingly give up the advantage and for some it will take a lawsuit.
Personally I would take a stronger tact and sue for damages, not just compliance.
I don't believe that all these companies "get caught by the nasty hidden GPL", oh my!. They know full well what they are doing: they know that the worst case scenario is to be forced into compliance without additional penalty; so they try non-compliance first to try and gain competitive advantage (real or perceived). If they get caught (the 'if'!) they will comply without further penalty and will still consider themselves ahead for the time they had on the market. That's business.
I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong,
that's a loaded statement that presupposes that if you take a copy of a song that you are not "paying them for their work". If you believe this -- truly believe this -- then everything else does not matter as the RIAA et.al has won. I personally do not believe this to be true and reject what you are saying. It is only the recording industry (not the music industry) that is pushing your belief.
but I see your 'pain' is much deeper as I read the rest of what you wrote. I debated deleting it all and just (maybe) writing TROLL...
and then I see more loaded statements like
Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do
not sure what you really meant here, but shouldn't an artist want for their works to be performed?...and I'm back to writing TROLL...
and then I get
we're helping artists by not paying them for their work.
so we're up to strawmen... I guess that's a just a troll in clothes that chafe....so I'm back to writing TROLL
And the coup-de-grace ? tying the GPL into this.
The GPL is about subverting copyright. Subverting. Read it again. Without Intellectual Monopolies like copyright there never would have need for the GPL.
At this point I'm not responding in hopes of killing the troll, but simply to ensure that those who read the troll are given some real facts about this.
I know I felt at least a little dirty using The GOOG to find out what Wolfram was....
on a happy note, when I searched google.com for "wolfram", wolfram.com was the 2nd result, and when I searched for "google" on wolfram it was also the second result. the 'net is in balance...
In addition, there is a cost associated with putting the music on the CD
I call bullsh!t. I've been led to believe that a "pressed" CD costs less (production cost) than a CDR. Remember that a commercial CD is pressed and there is a different process for CDRs so that the humble laser we own can burn the necessary bits...
Anyone with actual numbers care to comment one way or the other?
So don't copy songs if you cannot afford the damages.
speeding (>1mph) is now punishable by death-- proof is from a black box you have no access to, and can arrive after-the-fact from private sources... you ok with that? 'Cause a coupl'a songs downloaded are most people's life-savings...
just because some private concerns have managed to corrupt the law to their favor doesn't make it "right".
So lawyers make money. Big deal. So do doctors, and auto mechanics, and the geeks
I'll grant you your fairy world where people with knowledge get paid, but even in that fictitious world I disagree with you. Doctors produce healthy people (who in turn produce stuff), mechanics produce healthy cars (productivity in itself) and geeks (hopefully) increase people's productivity.
Lawyers are 100% drain on productive resources, and therefore economically don't deserve to get paid.
Their "productivity" is to decrease, drain or leach someone else's productivity.
They are at best a necessary evil, but an evil most definitely: Lawyers do not produce anything, but consume profits.
It is only because lawyers are in charge of writing laws that they are "required". If the law was reasonable (read: not corrupted) and accessible to the average person (read: not so f!ing convoluted and complicated) lawyers would be rare and for the most part not required. It becomes somewhat circular to argue that lawyers are required.
As for the execs, sure; they are trying to push for profit in the framework provided... by lawyers and corruption. Companies should not have the standing that they do, but that is for another post...
It appears that not everyone agrees with this: 4. Tendency for industry competition to evolve into monopolies and oligopolies Martin J. Whitman
it's important to remember that "monopoly" when used here doesn't mean 100% of the market, but (like MS) enough of the market that it might as well be 100%, or at least large enough that they can exercise anti-competitive behavior. Some might suggest that Walmart is already influencing the market: I don't know if they're actually anti-competitive, and there are certainly other retailers, but let's face it, they have no artificial monopoly protections such as patents and yet they are still dominating the market. Unchecked (and if nothing else changes) they could easily grow to encompass the majority of the retail market... personally I happen to agree with Mr. Whitman: there needs to be some regulation on business to ensure that there continues to be competition. It's somewhat counter-intuitive, and it's certainly not what Big Business wants people to believe...
On the other hand the various news articles in non-user-editable media are stuck with it.
non, non, non, non... they can print a retraction in the next issue.
So the news is like a tape back-up with diffs: to restore the data you just need all the tapes.
The worst case scenario from a RIAA lawsuit is that you wind up filing bankruptcy. Bankruptcy != murder, IMHO.
I disagree... lawsuits are the modern equivalent of physical violence, and taking all of someone's assets is the modern murder. Just because we now have a system that allows pillaging and plundering without bloodshed doesn't decrease the devastation that this causes to people and their families.
Lastly, people who lose it all often end it all, completing the 'murder'.
nah, it'll probably just be some crappy cam a guy took with his shoe-cam that totally won't do justice to the theatrics. I think I may stick to reading the screenplay for this one.
it's whether the product (informed, well written journalism) is in demand nowadays.
There might be a bigger demand for well written journalism if people were used to getting well written journalism.
If the "news industry" hadn't become the "Press Release Industry", or if there was any meaningful amount of investigative journalism then maybe people would notice that these traits were now missing. The reality is two-fold: The quality of The News has dropped and been dumbed-down, and quite frankly there are bloggers who can write - and it's these bloggers who have something to say that are getting the hits, not the millions-of-monkeys-to-write-Shakespeare.
Bottom line: the delta between Traditional Media and New Media is nowhere near as big as Traditional Media wants people to believe it is.
Slashdot Mirror
I was right with you until this point. ... hence, these sports stars are in fact worth the millions they are
paid.
The definition of what something is worth is what someone else will pay
This is a pure economic equation: The sport franchise only needs N players* and they have revenue of R. Roughly speaking, the owner of the team is willing to pay "(R - other-expense) / N" per player.
Again, basic economics disagrees with you: there are N seats in the arena and G games. They can't manufacture more, so they are trying to determine the maximum price to sell N * G tickets each season. If you find the price steep that simply means that N * G people** in your area value tickets more than you do.
On a related note, this is why movie stars get paid so much: the movie only needs one star and the production company expects to be able to make millions in revenue, and the belief that certain actors will generate greater revenue. Contrast with stage actors who don't get paid millions due to the limited income on a nightly basis. The important fact out of this is that we don't have to worry that without copyright acting will die. Tom Cruise, on the other hand will have to choose between not working, working as an actor for a lot less, or finding alternate employment.
* For most businesses when they have extra money they can hire more people to try to do more of whatever they do. For a sports franchise they are prohibited from hiring more people, so they instead start to bid more for the better talent, driving the price per person up.
** Where some people value it so much that they purchase multiple games up to and including season's pass.
Sounds like it may be time to get a better phone if you're intent on surfing...
*by this I mean that in the nesting of comments I need to move slightly to the right to see the next comment, and as I slide it "sticks" when the comment is fully (width-wise) inside the screen.
**by this I mean that to read a comment I don't ever need to scroll left/right as I'm reading (just up/down) even though the whole page is wider than my screen.
hey, I'm just prepping up a response and need to clarify if you were going for strawman or false dichotomy ?
everyone knows Libraries of Congress is a measurement of volume, not velocity. And I have no idea how loud it was at top speed.
Yes, if your goal is to maximize the line-count of your software.
Even Big Bloat Inc gets it:
"Measuring software productivity by lines of code is like measuring progress on an airplane by how much it weighs."- Bill Gates
Chimps don't look very tasty, so I don't think People Eating Tasty Animals would get upset about some chimps in space ... then again I've never tried one. Is there a sauce or side-dish they're particularly good with?
If you're on the fence as to the usefulness of patents to society, this book (pdf) will probably push you off the fence.
Patents may have been conceived as a way to increase innovation, but they have become a way to consolidate wealth to a few people at the expense of the public. And ultimately that is why there is such strong support for them: the rich want to stay rich. And as long as the rich control the laws instead of science, reason and public interest patents are not going anywhere...
This research doesn't seem to agree with your hypothesis: (pdf warning)
if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.
--Standard Overlord Answer book, revision 1, chapter 1, page 1, paragraph 1.
the model worked for decades: it's the damn pirates that broke it.
--Standard Overlord Answer book, revision 13, chapter 12.
Innovation is hard work. It really is. You have to keep doing it (like a job!) to keep getting paid. /.er to notice thanks to the pervasive flow of information... or maybe both. In economic terms it is said that "that which you reward, you encourage".
It's much easier to spend some profits from a previous quarter to legislate future profit guarantees.
This isn't new (like extending copyright which serves no purpose other than to enrich the current copyright owners), it's just either more widespread, or easier for the average
The only friend a business has is money. You are not and will never be their friend. Successful businesses externalize costs: getting "free" source code is such an externalization. They will not willingly give up the advantage and for some it will take a lawsuit.
Personally I would take a stronger tact and sue for damages, not just compliance.
I don't believe that all these companies "get caught by the nasty hidden GPL", oh my!. They know full well what they are doing: they know that the worst case scenario is to be forced into compliance without additional penalty; so they try non-compliance first to try and gain competitive advantage (real or perceived). If they get caught (the 'if'!) they will comply without further penalty and will still consider themselves ahead for the time they had on the market. That's business.
that's a loaded statement that presupposes that if you take a copy of a song that you are not "paying them for their work". If you believe this -- truly believe this -- then everything else does not matter as the RIAA et.al has won.
I personally do not believe this to be true and reject what you are saying. It is only the recording industry (not the music industry) that is pushing your belief.
but I see your 'pain' is much deeper as I read the rest of what you wrote. I debated deleting it all and just (maybe) writing TROLL ...
and then I see more loaded statements like
not sure what you really meant here, but shouldn't an artist want for their works to be performed? ...and I'm back to writing TROLL ...
and then I get
so we're up to strawmen ... I guess that's a just a troll in clothes that chafe....so I'm back to writing TROLL
And the coup-de-grace ? tying the GPL into this.
The GPL is about subverting copyright. Subverting. Read it again. Without Intellectual Monopolies like copyright there never would have need for the GPL.
At this point I'm not responding in hopes of killing the troll, but simply to ensure that those who read the troll are given some real facts about this.
Not a single "Stop" sign has in fact caused my car to decelerate to zero, but my will to acknowledge it has.
on a happy note, when I searched google.com for "wolfram", wolfram.com was the 2nd result, and when I searched for "google" on wolfram it was also the second result.
the 'net is in balance...
I call bullsh!t. I've been led to believe that a "pressed" CD costs less (production cost) than a CDR. Remember that a commercial CD is pressed and there is a different process for CDRs so that the humble laser we own can burn the necessary bits...
Anyone with actual numbers care to comment one way or the other?
circular.
speeding (>1mph) is now punishable by death-- proof is from a black box you have no access to, and can arrive after-the-fact from private sources ... you ok with that?
'Cause a coupl'a songs downloaded are most people's life-savings...
just because some private concerns have managed to corrupt the law to their favor doesn't make it "right".
Better to check the recent uploads of Taco. ...and I don't mean him.
I'll grant you your fairy world where people with knowledge get paid, but even in that fictitious world I disagree with you. Doctors produce healthy people (who in turn produce stuff), mechanics produce healthy cars (productivity in itself) and geeks (hopefully) increase people's productivity. ... by lawyers and corruption. Companies should not have the standing that they do, but that is for another post...
Lawyers are 100% drain on productive resources, and therefore economically don't deserve to get paid.
Their "productivity" is to decrease, drain or leach someone else's productivity.
They are at best a necessary evil, but an evil most definitely: Lawyers do not produce anything, but consume profits.
It is only because lawyers are in charge of writing laws that they are "required". If the law was reasonable (read: not corrupted) and accessible to the average person (read: not so f!ing convoluted and complicated) lawyers would be rare and for the most part not required. It becomes somewhat circular to argue that lawyers are required.
As for the execs, sure; they are trying to push for profit in the framework provided
It appears that not everyone agrees with this: ...
4. Tendency for industry competition to evolve into monopolies and oligopolies
Martin J. Whitman
it's important to remember that "monopoly" when used here doesn't mean 100% of the market, but (like MS) enough of the market that it might as well be 100%, or at least large enough that they can exercise anti-competitive behavior. Some might suggest that Walmart is already influencing the market: I don't know if they're actually anti-competitive, and there are certainly other retailers, but let's face it, they have no artificial monopoly protections such as patents and yet they are still dominating the market. Unchecked (and if nothing else changes) they could easily grow to encompass the majority of the retail market... personally I happen to agree with Mr. Whitman: there needs to be some regulation on business to ensure that there continues to be competition. It's somewhat counter-intuitive, and it's certainly not what Big Business wants people to believe
non, non, non, non ... they can print a retraction in the next issue.
So the news is like a tape back-up with diffs: to restore the data you just need all the tapes.
Popcorn wants to be free.
I must admit to being at least a little perturbed at the notion that you may have broken other electronics by abusing them sexually.
I disagree ... lawsuits are the modern equivalent of physical violence, and taking all of someone's assets is the modern murder. Just because we now have a system that allows pillaging and plundering without bloodshed doesn't decrease the devastation that this causes to people and their families.
Lastly, people who lose it all often end it all, completing the 'murder'.
nah, it'll probably just be some crappy cam a guy took with his shoe-cam that totally won't do justice to the theatrics. I think I may stick to reading the screenplay for this one.
There might be a bigger demand for well written journalism if people were used to getting well written journalism.
If the "news industry" hadn't become the "Press Release Industry", or if there was any meaningful amount of investigative journalism then maybe people would notice that these traits were now missing.
The reality is two-fold: The quality of The News has dropped and been dumbed-down, and quite frankly there are bloggers who can write - and it's these bloggers who have something to say that are getting the hits, not the millions-of-monkeys-to-write-Shakespeare.
Bottom line: the delta between Traditional Media and New Media is nowhere near as big as Traditional Media wants people to believe it is.