I concur. In mixed-use zoning it is at least possible for people to work near where they live, and thereby to interact more readily with their community - an activity that is far more difficult to do from the secure coccoon of a car.
This is the dilemna of intellectual property in the digital age.
If you can replicate a car (perfectly), then you can give one to all your friends, who can in turn replicate that car and give it to all their friends. Really, you're only limited to the amount of garage space you have. However, you'll all own the same car, and may want to drive something else every once in a while. Problem is, all the effort that the auto manufacturer has gone through to make that car so cool isn't getting paid for, making it more difficult for them to pay someone to do it again.
If someone is paying for it, then the person who created the work might be able to more like it because they can afford to live without working full time at a Taco Bell. In the case of music, the purpose of DRM is to enforce people paying for it. I know some will argue "more people pay for their music now than...", but it sure wasn't the case in the late 90s where, without DRM, everyone seemed to be getting their tunes via Napster.
Record companies as big, greedy beasts who haven't figured out a new fair model yet for the artists and consumers? Sure. But they exist to make money, and to make money for those that created the work (however poorly they distribute it to those people.) If someone has a better idea than DRM that allows everyone to win, from the artist, to the label that puts up the money to record and promote, to the consumer, please let them (and me) know.
As a working, independent musician and songwriter I have to agree. I don't like DRM for a multitude of reasons, but I think there is a vast misunderstanding about how artists make money compensating them for their time and energy. We may do it anyway because we love the music, but recording, touring, networking, promoting and the myriad other things we have to do (and they aren't easy, or else everyone would be doing them successfully) to get our music out to an audience takes up a lot of time...and time is worth money. Time we could be spending at some other job, not making music. We need to eat and put roofs over our head too, you know.
I know a lot of people claim to get their music by any means necessary and then only pay for those they enjoy listening to, but I think the number that actually remove the "unenjoyed" tracks from their computers are rare, and many listen on shuffle so those tunes are bound to come up. Unless you are always rushing back to your machine to skip those tracks (in which case, delete them), how is the artist being compensated for all the effort they made to get that song out there so that you can hear it and not enjoy it over and over again?
Big labels bad, no doubt. They've kept the little guy down (by keeping him out), and they extort their artists. However, we need some kind of model to protect the artist after the big labels fall. It's a hell of a lot of work (and costs a lot of money) if you don't have someone picking up the slack for you when it comes to publishing, promoting, touring, etc...and it's not all that lucrative for the independent musician or songwriter.
A true scientist chases truth but analying, observing, experimenting. A scientist should be interested only in the facts. Rarely does a group of scientists receive massive grants that personally benefit their wallets. Few people become scientists because of the money, and those that do will generally make that money by serving private corporations, not the government.
A politician, on the other hand, is in the business of people. A politician chases public opinion (always a swinging metric). Politicians set policy on behalf of those they represent. They are the "deciders" (a term that will surely be in the next OED). If the wind blows south, so goes policy, because politicians make most of their money via favors and special interests. There is an awful lot of money that can be made by making life easier for this group of people or that group of people.
On the question of truth, I think I would be more inclined to trust the consensus of science. Even when wrong, it is often nearer to, and continually pursuing, the truth. Politicians, on the other hand, often chase the flavor of the month. If the truth is inconvenient, then the truth might be cast aside.
Also note that the UK is rated #46 in murders per capita, though they do suffer from a
significantly high crime rate overall. In fairness, the US, right to bear arms still largely intact, isn't that far behind them.
That said, the US does have a higher perception of it's relative safety than most other nations.
...that Slashdotters are telling this guy he needs to get a life?
That aside, cut the guy some slack. He's 18. I skipped the whole higher education experience, prefering to hit the library, the books and the internet real hard until I was 28. I turned out fine (though admittidly, I am posting on Slashdot.) He'll pummel through this for a few years, "miss out" on all those oh so crucial social lessons, and by the time he's 24, he might start all over again. He may yearn for those "lost years" of getting wasted, getting laid and getting wasted (again), and simply dive back into university for a four year program, just to experience that awesome and oh so enviable social interaction.
18 is YOUNG. He's experimenting as much as anything, and if it works, more power to him. If it doesn't, then he'll go do something else. Isn't *that* what growing up is about?
Eve Online. WoW bores me, in part because it is a fantasy game. I simply don't enjoy it, and I really don't like the look of it much. But Eve...oh, if only I could afford to play Eve again...
Granted, plenty of people will think Eve is boring, but they just spend their nights playing solitaire =)
Slashdot Mirror
I concur. In mixed-use zoning it is at least possible for people to work near where they live, and thereby to interact more readily with their community - an activity that is far more difficult to do from the secure coccoon of a car.
-Zen
Worst part is, what kind of precedent has this man started...I already didn't trust either political party before the year 2000.
-Zen
This is the dilemna of intellectual property in the digital age.
If you can replicate a car (perfectly), then you can give one to all your friends, who can in turn replicate that car and give it to all their friends. Really, you're only limited to the amount of garage space you have. However, you'll all own the same car, and may want to drive something else every once in a while. Problem is, all the effort that the auto manufacturer has gone through to make that car so cool isn't getting paid for, making it more difficult for them to pay someone to do it again.
If someone is paying for it, then the person who created the work might be able to more like it because they can afford to live without working full time at a Taco Bell. In the case of music, the purpose of DRM is to enforce people paying for it. I know some will argue "more people pay for their music now than...", but it sure wasn't the case in the late 90s where, without DRM, everyone seemed to be getting their tunes via Napster.
Record companies as big, greedy beasts who haven't figured out a new fair model yet for the artists and consumers? Sure. But they exist to make money, and to make money for those that created the work (however poorly they distribute it to those people.) If someone has a better idea than DRM that allows everyone to win, from the artist, to the label that puts up the money to record and promote, to the consumer, please let them (and me) know.
Solutions, people, rather than "me-me-me-me-me!"
As a working, independent musician and songwriter I have to agree. I don't like DRM for a multitude of reasons, but I think there is a vast misunderstanding about how artists make money compensating them for their time and energy. We may do it anyway because we love the music, but recording, touring, networking, promoting and the myriad other things we have to do (and they aren't easy, or else everyone would be doing them successfully) to get our music out to an audience takes up a lot of time...and time is worth money. Time we could be spending at some other job, not making music. We need to eat and put roofs over our head too, you know.
I know a lot of people claim to get their music by any means necessary and then only pay for those they enjoy listening to, but I think the number that actually remove the "unenjoyed" tracks from their computers are rare, and many listen on shuffle so those tunes are bound to come up. Unless you are always rushing back to your machine to skip those tracks (in which case, delete them), how is the artist being compensated for all the effort they made to get that song out there so that you can hear it and not enjoy it over and over again?
Big labels bad, no doubt. They've kept the little guy down (by keeping him out), and they extort their artists. However, we need some kind of model to protect the artist after the big labels fall. It's a hell of a lot of work (and costs a lot of money) if you don't have someone picking up the slack for you when it comes to publishing, promoting, touring, etc...and it's not all that lucrative for the independent musician or songwriter.
--
Go away...I'm busy searching for truth...
My car is a machine that does only what I tell it to do. Does it deserve civil rights as well?
Until we can prove independent thought rather than programmed response in machines, I would call this trolling.
A true scientist chases truth but analying, observing, experimenting. A scientist should be interested only in the facts. Rarely does a group of scientists receive massive grants that personally benefit their wallets. Few people become scientists because of the money, and those that do will generally make that money by serving private corporations, not the government. A politician, on the other hand, is in the business of people. A politician chases public opinion (always a swinging metric). Politicians set policy on behalf of those they represent. They are the "deciders" (a term that will surely be in the next OED). If the wind blows south, so goes policy, because politicians make most of their money via favors and special interests. There is an awful lot of money that can be made by making life easier for this group of people or that group of people.
On the question of truth, I think I would be more inclined to trust the consensus of science. Even when wrong, it is often nearer to, and continually pursuing, the truth. Politicians, on the other hand, often chase the flavor of the month. If the truth is inconvenient, then the truth might be cast aside.
Is this suggesting that Economists are not, in fact, scientists?
Might I suggest you take a look at why Great Britain banned most guns in 1997.
The Dunblane Massacre and The Hungerford Massacre some years before.
Also note that the UK is rated #46 in murders per capita, though they do suffer from a significantly high crime rate overall. In fairness, the US, right to bear arms still largely intact, isn't that far behind them.
That said, the US does have a higher perception of it's relative safety than most other nations.
Not taking sides. Just passing on information.
Audio Engineer and Composer here. Count me in if you're miraculously lurking in Slashdot looking for talented Browncoats to add to the team.
What factual errors? I don't see any factual errors! What are you talking about? Surely your post is incomplete!
I'm sorry I ate your chocolate squirrel.
...this terrifying thought.
MySpace in the Metaverse.
Need I say more?
-Zen
...this terrifying thought. MySpace in the Metaverse. Need I say more? -Zen
...that Slashdotters are telling this guy he needs to get a life?
That aside, cut the guy some slack. He's 18. I skipped the whole higher education experience, prefering to hit the library, the books and the internet real hard until I was 28. I turned out fine (though admittidly, I am posting on Slashdot.) He'll pummel through this for a few years, "miss out" on all those oh so crucial social lessons, and by the time he's 24, he might start all over again. He may yearn for those "lost years" of getting wasted, getting laid and getting wasted (again), and simply dive back into university for a four year program, just to experience that awesome and oh so enviable social interaction.
18 is YOUNG. He's experimenting as much as anything, and if it works, more power to him. If it doesn't, then he'll go do something else. Isn't *that* what growing up is about?
-Zen
Eve Online. WoW bores me, in part because it is a fantasy game. I simply don't enjoy it, and I really don't like the look of it much. But Eve...oh, if only I could afford to play Eve again...
Granted, plenty of people will think Eve is boring, but they just spend their nights playing solitaire =)
-Zen