I think price is the sole reason right now e-readers aren't replacing the printed page.
Look at it this way - all you need to use a printed book is a light source, a pair of eyes, and a pair of hands. You don't need electricity; sunlight will do. When it comes to an e-book, though, you need a lot more.
Actually that's all you need with the Kindle too, except for the occasional charge. They last a long time because of their passive display.
No matter what, you need a power source - if you're travelling from one continent to another, you have to get adapter plugs for it just like you would any other type of appliance.
I don't think trans-continental travel will be a deciding factor:)
You also need to worry about file formats - technology is always a moving target, and so you can't assume that the file format of today will be the same used thirty years from now. You have to worry about downloads, which means that you usually have to worry about DRM of some sort.
All this can be said for movies and music too. Cory takes the stance that the Internet will just copy around DRM. And it's true, you can find DRM-free formats of just about anything you want. People won't be so concerned about having a printed book 30 years from now as having a free, instant access book on their e-reader.
I bet they are. They receive a lot of money in advertising dollars. There have been stories about offshore accounts and unpaid taxes. They have never released detailed financial statements. Instead, they have made vague claims about operating expenses and how they aren't in it for the money. Perhaps an unbiased article in English will appear summarizing the key points as they appear in the trial.
Is this a clarification or backpedaling? Originally you said "If I was in that position, I would actively block IE6, and have a large banner for IE7 users suggesting Firefox."
If I hired you to develop for a mass-market web site, I'd expect you not to make asinine decisions where around 20% of visitors are actively blocked from the site.
Most people are still incapable of pirating non-mainstream stuff. This is exactly the point of the discussion... why even bother with the people who will pirate anyway?
Because they don't want pirating to become mainstream.
Yet, they [the industry] simply say "we don't want to talk" and that's it then.
The industry has been moving into an online direction for a long time now. It's gotten to the point where Amazon sells songs for less than a $1 in a DRM-free mp3 format. There are services that offer all-you-can eat music listening for a monthly fee. There are YouTube revenue sharing deals, there's now places like Hulu, etc.
Why would you use Piratebay if it's free when it takes two weeks to download a movie because no one is seeding what you want to see?
Competitors who do not respect copyright will drive down the price to near zero while upping the quality. They can do these because they can live well on the slim margins without having to pay to produce the content. They can also rely on people that just want to share without concerns about profit. This is the Pirate Bay model.
There will always be those that don't want to pay at all, fuck them! We need to make the improvements for people that want to take part in the economy.
I agree to an extent, but between the people who will pay because they feel it's right, and the people who will go out of their way to pirate, there is a large middle who will lean in either direction depending on the environment. If it's trivial to get free with no advertisements, then they will move in that direction.
If TPB lose, then things will get even worse as file sharing is forced further into the darknet and whole cultures start to grow up effectively rejecting completely any moral regard for copyright in any form.
What if they won, and the RIAA just decided to call off all lawsuits? I know it's not likely, this is a hypothetical. Where is the moral regard for copyright?
Will they keep on getting it if their Internet connection offered the same stuff for free? Consider a Pirate Bay + media center setup. 100% free. No advertising.
This is a bullshit claim, people WANT to pay for stuff if the service is good.
It's debatable. There are lots of places now where you can get music on the cheap, yet still we see the rants here about how the RIAA doesn't get it, how they aren't giving the people what they want. Everybody has their own idea of how much they should pay.
The reason why we have this rampant piracy is that the studios and content creators and rights holders refuse to adopt models that cater to the consumers.
The only model that will really cater to the consumers is 100% free, no advertisements, no copyright restrictions. Everything else leads to complaints about why the model isn't good enough and why pirating is rampant.
"If a woman breaks the law which the husband or father has placed for the wife or daughter, honor killing has been justified," said Shahram, who was a regular panelist on a law show produced by Bridges TV. "It happens all the time. It's been practiced in countries such as Pakistan and in India."
It's like building an elaborate spaceport for interstellar travel and assuming someone else will come up with the spaceships. BTW, playstation 3 suffers from the same problem and thats probably the main reason the Wii is kicking its ass.
That's an extremely poor analogy. First of all, Wii is a spaceship when it comes to console games. They went with a novel controller and tried to appeal to casual gamers instead of high-cost, high-performance tech. A more accurate comparison would be between the 360 and the PS3, where the PS3 theoretically has more horsepower but practically doesn't showcase it in games.
This "OH MY GOODNESS THE RICH EXECUTIVES WANT TO BIND ME IN CHAINS" nonsense is really silly and is really is something I'd expect to see at an Obama rally instead of a website like this one...
Outside of selling t-shirts and other swag to help with their legal costs, the last time I noticed, I didn't have to give a credit card number to use TPB.
They also advertise. If you think they aren't in it for profits, ask them for details on their finances. You know, basic stuff like expenses and revenue. Funding and business ownership. Offshore accounts and unpaid taxes. They're very cagey about these details. I imagine some of this might come out in the trial.
That's a good point, not all Microsoft products allow arbitrary software. However, the equivalent to an iPhone would be a Windows Mobile device, which I believe doesn't require funneling through Microsoft.
Personally, I think anything that can be copied really shouldn't be copyrightable, not necessarily because I like to pirate because you should be able to physically manipulate anything you buy in any way you see fit unless you give up that right through contract.
As long as you aren't redistributing to other people, you have freedom to manipulate as you please. The DMCA is a recent invention and a bit wonky, but it still allows you fair use.
I think part of the problem is that traditionally, people have built careers on what now can be represented in binary terms and easily transferred to other people, and hence people think they have a right to treating those 1s and 0s like they were chairs or televisions (scarce resources).
Copyright was always about artificial scarcity once the printing press was invented. Of course, the part that isn't scarce is the original labor invested into the creation, and that is what copyright was meant to foster.
If Apple actually had monopoly power they'd be breaking the law too. At least Microsoft allows software on their platform without requiring a cut of the profits. It also doesn't disallow software that is in direct competition.
As for actually breaking the law, you might want to look at Apple's backdating scandals.
You made the claim. I'm not going to pay money to sift through all your posts. I did, however, look for a Slashdot story linking to the article you referenced and didn't find any. What I did find was somebody saying the same thing days before more details came out and nobody called him crazy.
Slashdot Mirror
And that has nothing to do with price
I think price is the sole reason right now e-readers aren't replacing the printed page.
Look at it this way - all you need to use a printed book is a light source, a pair of eyes, and a pair of hands. You don't need electricity; sunlight will do. When it comes to an e-book, though, you need a lot more.
Actually that's all you need with the Kindle too, except for the occasional charge. They last a long time because of their passive display.
No matter what, you need a power source - if you're travelling from one continent to another, you have to get adapter plugs for it just like you would any other type of appliance.
I don't think trans-continental travel will be a deciding factor :)
You also need to worry about file formats - technology is always a moving target, and so you can't assume that the file format of today will be the same used thirty years from now. You have to worry about downloads, which means that you usually have to worry about DRM of some sort.
All this can be said for movies and music too. Cory takes the stance that the Internet will just copy around DRM. And it's true, you can find DRM-free formats of just about anything you want. People won't be so concerned about having a printed book 30 years from now as having a free, instant access book on their e-reader.
Pirate bay isn't a business
I bet they are. They receive a lot of money in advertising dollars. There have been stories about offshore accounts and unpaid taxes. They have never released detailed financial statements. Instead, they have made vague claims about operating expenses and how they aren't in it for the money. Perhaps an unbiased article in English will appear summarizing the key points as they appear in the trial.
First, if you've hired me, it's up to you.
Is this a clarification or backpedaling? Originally you said "If I was in that position, I would actively block IE6, and have a large banner for IE7 users suggesting Firefox."
If I hired you to develop for a mass-market web site, I'd expect you not to make asinine decisions where around 20% of visitors are actively blocked from the site.
Says "couchslug".
Most people are still incapable of pirating non-mainstream stuff. This is exactly the point of the discussion ... why even bother with the people who will pirate anyway?
Because they don't want pirating to become mainstream.
Yet, they [the industry] simply say "we don't want to talk" and that's it then.
The industry has been moving into an online direction for a long time now. It's gotten to the point where Amazon sells songs for less than a $1 in a DRM-free mp3 format. There are services that offer all-you-can eat music listening for a monthly fee. There are YouTube revenue sharing deals, there's now places like Hulu, etc.
Why would you use Piratebay if it's free when it takes two weeks to download a movie because no one is seeding what you want to see?
Competitors who do not respect copyright will drive down the price to near zero while upping the quality. They can do these because they can live well on the slim margins without having to pay to produce the content. They can also rely on people that just want to share without concerns about profit. This is the Pirate Bay model.
There will always be those that don't want to pay at all, fuck them! We need to make the improvements for people that want to take part in the economy.
I agree to an extent, but between the people who will pay because they feel it's right, and the people who will go out of their way to pirate, there is a large middle who will lean in either direction depending on the environment. If it's trivial to get free with no advertisements, then they will move in that direction.
Freedom says that you may share or not share with your neighbor, as you choose. It does not say "it is ethical to share with your neighbor".
If TPB lose, then things will get even worse as file sharing is forced further into the darknet and whole cultures start to grow up effectively rejecting completely any moral regard for copyright in any form.
What if they won, and the RIAA just decided to call off all lawsuits? I know it's not likely, this is a hypothetical. Where is the moral regard for copyright?
Cable isn't free either? Still people get it.
Will they keep on getting it if their Internet connection offered the same stuff for free? Consider a Pirate Bay + media center setup. 100% free. No advertising.
This is a bullshit claim, people WANT to pay for stuff if the service is good.
It's debatable. There are lots of places now where you can get music on the cheap, yet still we see the rants here about how the RIAA doesn't get it, how they aren't giving the people what they want. Everybody has their own idea of how much they should pay.
The reason why we have this rampant piracy is that the studios and content creators and rights holders refuse to adopt models that cater to the consumers.
The only model that will really cater to the consumers is 100% free, no advertisements, no copyright restrictions. Everything else leads to complaints about why the model isn't good enough and why pirating is rampant.
Maybe it's the scripture that's flawed.
You wouldn't want to make it angry.
From your link:
"If a woman breaks the law which the husband or father has placed for the wife or daughter, honor killing has been justified," said Shahram, who was a regular panelist on a law show produced by Bridges TV. "It happens all the time. It's been practiced in countries such as Pakistan and in India."
Yay for multiculturalism.
Posting Bill Gates' home address is refusing to live in fear?
I'm out of mod points. Otherwise I would have modded you "Overrated".
Software freedom says that it is ethical to share with your neighbor
Which is why the movement is mislabeled. Freedom has nothing to do with sharing with your neighbor.
Wine Is Not an Emulator
It's like building an elaborate spaceport for interstellar travel and assuming someone else will come up with the spaceships. BTW, playstation 3 suffers from the same problem and thats probably the main reason the Wii is kicking its ass.
That's an extremely poor analogy. First of all, Wii is a spaceship when it comes to console games. They went with a novel controller and tried to appeal to casual gamers instead of high-cost, high-performance tech. A more accurate comparison would be between the 360 and the PS3, where the PS3 theoretically has more horsepower but practically doesn't showcase it in games.
This "OH MY GOODNESS THE RICH EXECUTIVES WANT TO BIND ME IN CHAINS" nonsense is really silly and is really is something I'd expect to see at an Obama rally instead of a website like this one...
You must be new here.
Outside of selling t-shirts and other swag to help with their legal costs, the last time I noticed, I didn't have to give a credit card number to use TPB.
They also advertise. If you think they aren't in it for profits, ask them for details on their finances. You know, basic stuff like expenses and revenue. Funding and business ownership. Offshore accounts and unpaid taxes. They're very cagey about these details. I imagine some of this might come out in the trial.
That's a good point, not all Microsoft products allow arbitrary software. However, the equivalent to an iPhone would be a Windows Mobile device, which I believe doesn't require funneling through Microsoft.
Personally, I think anything that can be copied really shouldn't be copyrightable, not necessarily because I like to pirate because you should be able to physically manipulate anything you buy in any way you see fit unless you give up that right through contract.
As long as you aren't redistributing to other people, you have freedom to manipulate as you please. The DMCA is a recent invention and a bit wonky, but it still allows you fair use.
I think part of the problem is that traditionally, people have built careers on what now can be represented in binary terms and easily transferred to other people, and hence people think they have a right to treating those 1s and 0s like they were chairs or televisions (scarce resources).
Copyright was always about artificial scarcity once the printing press was invented. Of course, the part that isn't scarce is the original labor invested into the creation, and that is what copyright was meant to foster.
If Apple actually had monopoly power they'd be breaking the law too. At least Microsoft allows software on their platform without requiring a cut of the profits. It also doesn't disallow software that is in direct competition.
As for actually breaking the law, you might want to look at Apple's backdating scandals.
Their service can be used both for good and bad.
What part about "The Pirate Bay" don't you understand? They flaunt their purpose.
If the majority of people choose to use it for illegal sharing, that why don't they pursue those people?
The record industry did. Of course, they were immediately labeled as evil villains.
And, I'll tell you why - because everyFUCKINGbody does it!
"everybody" speeds to some extent too. However, speeding is not legal.
You made the claim. I'm not going to pay money to sift through all your posts. I did, however, look for a Slashdot story linking to the article you referenced and didn't find any. What I did find was somebody saying the same thing days before more details came out and nobody called him crazy.
Remember that in the US copyright was originally 14 years or rather 7 + 7 (7 when you registered, extensible by another 7).
Actually 28 (14 initial + 14 extension).