The difference is that an application developer can offer a Windows, Mac, and Linux version of their software, tailored to each environment. A web developer can only hack away at a feature for so long before having to decide to leave it broken for some users or remove it altogether, since users won't accept multiple versions for each different browser, the way they do for each OS.
Gecko and WebKit will invariably release fixes for their implementations in a timely manner, as updates to the current versions at the time. That's what garners the praise.
MS will invariably implement what the hell ever they want and promise to fix it in the next release, several years later. That's what garners the axe-grinding.
IE may have come along before standards, but that's no excuse to be the last to come along to meet those standards once they exist.
I'm typing this in FireFox 3 on Vista Ultimate. Windows does rock my desktop, no doubt. And, before anyone shouts MS fanboi, let me point out, once again, that I'm typing this in FF3; be similarly advised that I've got just under a dozen X11 applications forwarding to this machine from the beefy Linux server in my closet.
Everything has its place, even IE. IE's place is in the dark recesses of my hard disk, sleeping until patch Tuesday. It doesn't really come out for that, anymore, since Windows Update is becoming more like a real application. I do awaken it from its peaceful slumber for compatibility testing, but I typically do that with IETab.
Yes, I work with this every day. That is why I keep a sharp axe.
I was making a blanket statement about media, not just relating to this bone broadcaster, but thank you for pointing that out for those who may not have know.
How about an explanation of the translation, since it's already about as concise as it can be.
Right now, people can get unencrypted, DRM-free, commercial-free files, which (will always) work anywhere, any time, for free.
People can also get encrypted, DRM-laden, commercial-packed files which (might, if you're lucky) work on certified players, as long as the company that produced the DRM scheme stays in business top operate the DRM servers and the copyright owner doesn't decide to take the work off the market, for an artificially inflated, unfair market price.
More people will pay for option one, if faced with the choice to do so, than will pay for option two.
I know I'd pay more for what I'm getting for free now than I will ever pay for what's on store shelves today.
I was responding to your comment, which was unrelated to P2P.
Oh, wait, I did say I was, and yes, an "appropriately sounding song" as a substitute for the song I would otherwise have to pay for (or rip and tag) does sound about right. While I can rip it (as in my example), often it's more convenient, and quicker, to download it, as it is already tagged. Oh, and, would I have bought those MP3? Didn't I just explain to you that I could have legally ripped them from the CD sitting on my shelf?
If you care to counter my actual argument, please do so. If not, bugger off.
Society has laws to punish behavior we think is unacceptable, and getting something for nothing when most everyone else around you has to pay for it is one of those unacceptable behaviors.
I don't know how I missed this little gem the first time around.
I work in a store that sells, for $14.95, an item that amounts to little more than a stick picked up off the ground and placed in the track of a sliding door.
Are you telling me that if, rather than working for 3 hours to afford this item (after taxes are removed form my paycheck, and, oh, sales tax on the item), I simply go outside and find an appropriately sized stick laying on the ground, my behavior is unacceptable?
I mean, most everyone would have to pay for that item and I just got one for free, right?
Not really free, though; I did 30 seconds worth of work, rather than 3 hours. Just like I can do 30 seconds of work and copy a CD (that, say, I already own, provided there is no DRM) to MP3 format, rather than working for 3 hours to buy it in MP3 format, because I know how to, while most people would have to pay.
You weren't really exaggerating, so much as just plain wrong. What was your point?
Except, in this case, I didn't take the file. I set the file on a Xerox(R) machine, pressed the big green button, placed the file back in the cabinet, and took the copy I just made.
I don't feel bad about using the toner and paper in the copier, either, because the owner of the copier put up a sign reading "Free copies, these files only."
I can only, reasonably, assume that the owner of the machine, having placed such a sign above it, has the right to authorize my copying of the files held in his filing cabinet. If he does not have that right, it is he who has run afoul of the law.
You really should read the applicable laws, you might find them interesting.
Howso? I'm agreeing that the majority who can copy, do copy. I never refuted that. I even go so far as to say, if I could afford to buy everything I download, I would not and I would download just as much as I do no.
I further posit that the majority of the population are of similar mind on this matter.
We all understand that artists entertain us for a living. We all understand that, if they can no longer make a living doing so, they will make a living doing something else. We all understand that, by withholding payment for their work impedes their ability to make a living.
Those of us who find value in said work understand, then, why it is important to compensate artists appropriately, whenever possible.
Those artists who work to entertain understand, as well, why some people obtain their work without compensation.
I'm speaking from the point of view of an artist; perhaps that's why you believe us to be at cross purposes.
How am I biased? I didn't read the post you quoted, I only read the part of it that you did quote. There was nothing in what you quoted "claiming that most people support copyright."
Further, I was adding a why to your what. The majority of the world is the third world. The majority of the world can copy and do copy because they can't pay.
Read my other posts and you'll very quickly find that I make points on both sides of the argument. That's the very antithesis of bias.
I can copy. I do copy. I can't afford to pay for the content I copy, because I have bills to pay first.
Some would say that, because I can't afford to pay for it, I should simply go without. Perhaps I should.
Do the artists, labels, or retailers make more or less if I go without? No. All that happens if I go without is that my life is less enriched and I harbor ill will toward those who insist that I should suffer when I could get ahead at no cost to anyone, simply because they cannot profit from my enjoyment.
You know what? You can't profit from my suffering, either. You can't profit either way, so, given the choice between suffering and enjoying something, I will chose enjoyment.
Every. Single. Time.
It's not hurting anyone if I download music and movies I can't afford to purchase. Literally nobody is being deprived of anything. In fact, the longer I can get on with this without being sued, the more purchases I make as I am financially capable of doing so based on my downloads.
Which leads me back to my point, those who can't pay, don't pay.
Even if I could afford to pay for everything I want, I would still download. Why? I end up not wanting a lot of what I download and I flat-out refuse to pay for what I do not want. I would download what I might want, buy what I do want, and delete what I do not want.
Would I download less if I could pay for content? No. Would I pay for more? Yes.
Something tells me the vast majority feels the same way.
What's funny is, as I was concentrating on reading the last paragraph of your post, I was focusing on each word as I read it. Something seemed strange as I read, so I read it again, this time pausing for several seconds before moving to the next word.
Having already read the paragraph, I knew what it said. There was no sense of urgency in my mind, nothing to influence whatever part of my brain causes saccades to refresh my field of view so I could read the next word.
I could see each word very clearly when I first focused on it. By the time I moved my focus the the next word, I saw mostly gray.
Try it. Read this post a couple times, comprehend it, then focus on each word, individually, for several seconds.
Given the fact that the vast majority of the population that can copy, do copy, particularly in the third world, it's pretty clear where the bias is here.
Emphasis mine.
Given the fact that the vast majority of the population that can't pay, doesn't pay, particularly in the third world, it's pretty clear where the bias is here.
Hardly any of the content being traded over P2P and attracting the attention of Big Media is anywhere near running out of copyright, even on the original terms of just a few years.
That may be because, while I'm downloading my favorite 80's hits (which should now be public domain), I figure I may as well download the song I just heard on the radio, since I'm already committing copyright infringement, anyway.
Will my liability be reduced simply because the content is old enough to no longer be protected by old copyright law? No, it's protected by current copyright law, just as content created last week is protected by current copyright law.
If copyright law was worded such that the laws in effect on the date of creation are the laws that apply to the work, my 80's favorites would be a legal download and I might be less inclined to download more recent works, since I haven't already crossed that line.
I'll respond to your other points in separate posts, once I've read them. This pretty much stands on its own.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... Interesting proposition. I wonder how many IP addresses the shared hosting server I have a few websites on would need if that happened.
The difference is that an application developer can offer a Windows, Mac, and Linux version of their software, tailored to each environment. A web developer can only hack away at a feature for so long before having to decide to leave it broken for some users or remove it altogether, since users won't accept multiple versions for each different browser, the way they do for each OS.
I'll take a karma hit for this but...
I love you.
Gecko and WebKit will invariably release fixes for their implementations in a timely manner, as updates to the current versions at the time. That's what garners the praise.
MS will invariably implement what the hell ever they want and promise to fix it in the next release, several years later. That's what garners the axe-grinding.
IE may have come along before standards, but that's no excuse to be the last to come along to meet those standards once they exist.
I'm typing this in FireFox 3 on Vista Ultimate. Windows does rock my desktop, no doubt. And, before anyone shouts MS fanboi, let me point out, once again, that I'm typing this in FF3; be similarly advised that I've got just under a dozen X11 applications forwarding to this machine from the beefy Linux server in my closet.
Everything has its place, even IE. IE's place is in the dark recesses of my hard disk, sleeping until patch Tuesday. It doesn't really come out for that, anymore, since Windows Update is becoming more like a real application. I do awaken it from its peaceful slumber for compatibility testing, but I typically do that with IETab.
Yes, I work with this every day. That is why I keep a sharp axe.
While I can rip it (as in my example), often it's more convenient, and quicker, to download it, as it is already tagged.
Please try to keep up with the conversation.
Yes, please do. If you can't make a valid, or at least truthful, argument, please, refrain from making one at all.
I was making a blanket statement about media, not just relating to this bone broadcaster, but thank you for pointing that out for those who may not have know.
How about an explanation of the translation, since it's already about as concise as it can be.
Right now, people can get unencrypted, DRM-free, commercial-free files, which (will always) work anywhere, any time, for free.
People can also get encrypted, DRM-laden, commercial-packed files which (might, if you're lucky) work on certified players, as long as the company that produced the DRM scheme stays in business top operate the DRM servers and the copyright owner doesn't decide to take the work off the market, for an artificially inflated, unfair market price.
More people will pay for option one, if faced with the choice to do so, than will pay for option two.
I know I'd pay more for what I'm getting for free now than I will ever pay for what's on store shelves today.
Did I say I was?
I was responding to your comment, which was unrelated to P2P.
Oh, wait, I did say I was, and yes, an "appropriately sounding song" as a substitute for the song I would otherwise have to pay for (or rip and tag) does sound about right. While I can rip it (as in my example), often it's more convenient, and quicker, to download it, as it is already tagged. Oh, and, would I have bought those MP3? Didn't I just explain to you that I could have legally ripped them from the CD sitting on my shelf?
If you care to counter my actual argument, please do so. If not, bugger off.
"Experience from our early tests show that if we're the best provider of our own content we also gain control of it."
Translated: More people will pay for what they can get for free than will pay for for less than they can get for free.
Uhm, they did say unencrypted files.
ehm... not sure why this posted as A/C... this was me
Society has laws to punish behavior we think is unacceptable, and getting something for nothing when most everyone else around you has to pay for it is one of those unacceptable behaviors.
I don't know how I missed this little gem the first time around.
I work in a store that sells, for $14.95, an item that amounts to little more than a stick picked up off the ground and placed in the track of a sliding door.
Are you telling me that if, rather than working for 3 hours to afford this item (after taxes are removed form my paycheck, and, oh, sales tax on the item), I simply go outside and find an appropriately sized stick laying on the ground, my behavior is unacceptable?
I mean, most everyone would have to pay for that item and I just got one for free, right?
Not really free, though; I did 30 seconds worth of work, rather than 3 hours. Just like I can do 30 seconds of work and copy a CD (that, say, I already own, provided there is no DRM) to MP3 format, rather than working for 3 hours to buy it in MP3 format, because I know how to, while most people would have to pay.
You weren't really exaggerating, so much as just plain wrong. What was your point?
Except, in this case, I didn't take the file. I set the file on a Xerox(R) machine, pressed the big green button, placed the file back in the cabinet, and took the copy I just made.
I don't feel bad about using the toner and paper in the copier, either, because the owner of the copier put up a sign reading "Free copies, these files only."
I can only, reasonably, assume that the owner of the machine, having placed such a sign above it, has the right to authorize my copying of the files held in his filing cabinet. If he does not have that right, it is he who has run afoul of the law.
You really should read the applicable laws, you might find them interesting.
He surrenders.
Word.
BB OS 4.5 includes Documents To Go, which can view and edit word docs and powerpoint presentations.
Guess there's still a need for office on the phone.
Never use "the cloud" for backup.
After it rains, the clouds go away.
Will PB sue the RIAA for "assisting making available"?
Mod points please? +5 Fucking Epic.
Howso? I'm agreeing that the majority who can copy, do copy. I never refuted that. I even go so far as to say, if I could afford to buy everything I download, I would not and I would download just as much as I do no.
I further posit that the majority of the population are of similar mind on this matter.
We all understand that artists entertain us for a living. We all understand that, if they can no longer make a living doing so, they will make a living doing something else. We all understand that, by withholding payment for their work impedes their ability to make a living.
Those of us who find value in said work understand, then, why it is important to compensate artists appropriately, whenever possible.
Those artists who work to entertain understand, as well, why some people obtain their work without compensation.
I'm speaking from the point of view of an artist; perhaps that's why you believe us to be at cross purposes.
We're not.
How am I biased? I didn't read the post you quoted, I only read the part of it that you did quote. There was nothing in what you quoted "claiming that most people support copyright."
Further, I was adding a why to your what. The majority of the world is the third world. The majority of the world can copy and do copy because they can't pay.
Read my other posts and you'll very quickly find that I make points on both sides of the argument. That's the very antithesis of bias.
I can copy. I do copy. I can't afford to pay for the content I copy, because I have bills to pay first.
Some would say that, because I can't afford to pay for it, I should simply go without. Perhaps I should.
Do the artists, labels, or retailers make more or less if I go without? No. All that happens if I go without is that my life is less enriched and I harbor ill will toward those who insist that I should suffer when I could get ahead at no cost to anyone, simply because they cannot profit from my enjoyment.
You know what? You can't profit from my suffering, either. You can't profit either way, so, given the choice between suffering and enjoying something, I will chose enjoyment.
Every. Single. Time.
It's not hurting anyone if I download music and movies I can't afford to purchase. Literally nobody is being deprived of anything. In fact, the longer I can get on with this without being sued, the more purchases I make as I am financially capable of doing so based on my downloads.
Which leads me back to my point, those who can't pay, don't pay.
Even if I could afford to pay for everything I want, I would still download. Why? I end up not wanting a lot of what I download and I flat-out refuse to pay for what I do not want. I would download what I might want, buy what I do want, and delete what I do not want.
Would I download less if I could pay for content? No. Would I pay for more? Yes.
Something tells me the vast majority feels the same way.
What's funny is, as I was concentrating on reading the last paragraph of your post, I was focusing on each word as I read it. Something seemed strange as I read, so I read it again, this time pausing for several seconds before moving to the next word.
Having already read the paragraph, I knew what it said. There was no sense of urgency in my mind, nothing to influence whatever part of my brain causes saccades to refresh my field of view so I could read the next word.
I could see each word very clearly when I first focused on it. By the time I moved my focus the the next word, I saw mostly gray.
Try it. Read this post a couple times, comprehend it, then focus on each word, individually, for several seconds.
Given the fact that the vast majority of the population that can copy, do copy, particularly in the third world, it's pretty clear where the bias is here.
Emphasis mine.
Given the fact that the vast majority of the population that can't pay, doesn't pay, particularly in the third world, it's pretty clear where the bias is here.
Hardly any of the content being traded over P2P and attracting the attention of Big Media is anywhere near running out of copyright, even on the original terms of just a few years.
That may be because, while I'm downloading my favorite 80's hits (which should now be public domain), I figure I may as well download the song I just heard on the radio, since I'm already committing copyright infringement, anyway.
Will my liability be reduced simply because the content is old enough to no longer be protected by old copyright law? No, it's protected by current copyright law, just as content created last week is protected by current copyright law.
If copyright law was worded such that the laws in effect on the date of creation are the laws that apply to the work, my 80's favorites would be a legal download and I might be less inclined to download more recent works, since I haven't already crossed that line.
I'll respond to your other points in separate posts, once I've read them. This pretty much stands on its own.
It's a Personal Identification PIN Number, jackass.