I think the point was more about what should be prioritized when it comes to replacing vehicles; you cannot get everyone to replace all of their cars at the same time. So, if you are working on a policy for the US government, what sort of policy should you push? You could give a tax credit to everyone whose vehicle gets more than 40MPG, but what about all of those people who need a large, less fuel efficient vehicle? They won't have any incentive to replace their guzzler, even though it would be a lot better for them to do so.
In fact, the two cases are not interchangeable. Suppose the problem is dressed up a little: you have two cars that you use on a regular basis (this is not negotiable), but only enough money to replace one of them. One car gets 33MPG, and the other gets 10MPG. If you replace the 33MPG car, you can get a 50MPG vehicle. If you replace the 10MPG, you can get a 20MPG vehicle. Which would save more gas, replacing the 33MPG car or the 10MPG car?
It really depends on the comparison you are making. If you currently have a 10MPG vehicle, and you have a choice between 20MPG and 50MPG, clearly the 50MPG car is the winner. On the other hand, if you have two families, one driving a 33MPG compact, the other driving an old 10MPG station wagon, and you can choose to encourage the first to buy a 50MPG hybrid or encourage the second to buy a 20MPG SUV, which policy should you pursue?
The point TFA is trying to make is that there are a lot of people out there who need a large vehicle, perhaps because they have a large family, or because they need to transport some sort of equipment around for their work, or whatever. Such vehicles are not going to get 50MPG (at least not with the current state of car manufacturing), but 20MPG is not unreasonable.
My zoned high school (which I thankfully did not attend) boasted a 30-40% "at or above grade level" scoring rate on the statewide basic algebra exam, at least as recently as 2005. This was considered an improvement over the rate from the 90s, which hovered around 25%. I am not at all surprised that so few people can see through a basic ratios problem like the one given in TFA, even though my high school is (hopefully) not representative of the norm.
The way I see it, the issue is that we should not be setting a precedent of awarding ludicrous amounts of money. If Limewire is ordered to pay over a trillion dollars, it allows the copyright lobby to hold the threat of similar payouts over the heads over more innocent companies, should those companies do something the lobby does not approve of. The fact that Limewire happens to install spyware does not mean it is a good thing for an absurd ruling against them.
The scary thing is not that people believe these studies, but that the people who seem to believe these numbers the most are in a position to pass laws. People in congress hear that teenagers are downloading video games at no cost, and immediately think, "What?! Not the sort of business-driven approach that we envisioned?! Billions of dollars lost? Let's start passing laws to punish all these pirates! Let's try to force other countries to do the same!"
Re:This kinda tells about power of your brand...
on
Apple Announces iPhone 4
·
· Score: 5, Funny
As I recall, this is the same man who declared the iPad having the ability to browse the web to be something unique that no other device on the market can do.
Those were also the days of the rise of science and the scientific method, the invention of printing press, and the beginnings of the industrial revolution. I suppose all those things should be done away with, simply because they happened at the same time as the negative things you mentioned?
I have not seen many blogs that really fall into the category of "high quality journalism."
Blogs are based on the same business model, and will suffer from the same problems.
I am thinking more in terms of a system where journalism is viewed as a public service, so the public pays for it, and the public has the right to copy and disseminate the news as much as they want. Instead of the law being used to limit the spread of that information, the law would be rewritten to prevent abuses of the system, and to ensure that the public has access to reliable and accurate news.
Actually, the whole point of the GPL is that the authors of creative works should not retain absolute control over the distribution of the work. The fact that the GPL uses copyright law as a means to that end is entirely incidental; it would have been just as effective to rewrite the law itself to grant the public the same rights that the GPL grants.
The whole "GPL is built on copyrights, so free software supporters should not opposed other uses of the copyright system" is misleading and attempts to portray the GPL as another case of "creators get to decide the rules." The point of the GPL is to improve the public's access to software, and the philosophy is based on improving the public's access to information and creative works in general. Sure, dismantling the copyright system entirely, without creating a new set of laws protecting the public's access to creative works, would be a problem for free software supporters. Replacing the current copyright system with a new system that encourages sharing and increases the ability of people to find information, that is perfectly fine for a free software supporter.
You have failed to prove that people who are reading the articles on those websites would have otherwise read the articles on the newspaper's official site. What reason is there to believe that people are flocking to these unofficial websites, as opposed to them simply not reading the articles at all? Maybe everyone is too busy on their favorite social networking website. Maybe some random blogger's opinion seems more relevant to people than a journalist's.
"they'll stop "sharing" when the newspapers go out of business too."
Why? People will just find a new source for their news. Now that we have a massive, globally deployed network that enables fast communication, news spreads quickly. Of course, good, solid journalism is another story, but the age of greed based journalism is at its end. It is time for a new system to be devised, where journalists are paid for their work without having to rely on the scarcity of information.
"Yeah, getting paid for your work is so out of date!"
Where did I say people should not get paid? I have no problem with people getting paid for their work. My problem is that these companies are attacking the general public. As far as I am concerned, it is time to find a new way to pay journalists and artists.
"You're also forgetting that copyright law is vitally important to the GPL and creative commons too."
Please point out where I said we should repeal copyright law. All I said was that it is time for the focus to shift away from greed and toward improving the public's ability to access creative works.
Maybe newspapers could refuse to publish stories unless a certain number of people subscribe? Or, perhaps it is time to change the system at a more fundamental level, and not have news be treated as a business, but as a public service?
Yeah, that second one sounds nice. A system where the public pays for the news. Where the law protects the public's interest in having access to reliable news, rather than putting the public in danger if they dare to disseminate the news further. Or, if the thought of the government paying for news makes you uncomfortable, perhaps it is time for the general public to set up a source of financing that is independent from the government, to pay for news. You know, the people looking out for their own interests.
It is interesting how you dismiss a moral argument as "flimsy," and then present a greed based argument as the solution. Last I checked, the most successful news-driven-by-profit-motive operation was Fox News; do you want to see all news sources degenerate to that level?
You know, I can still remember a time when the Web and the Internet in general were being hailed as the coming of a golden age of information availability, where people would be able to find information faster than ever before. What happened to that view of the Internet?
Oh, that's right, a group of people whose businesses are based on information not being available started suing people left and right.
"If you reproduce a large part of the article or somehow intercept the readers, it has the same effect as stealing some money directly from their bank account."
Prove it -- prove that if I distribute a copy of some article, it will result in money being lost on the part of the newspaper. Prove that the people reading my copy of the article would have otherwise paid money for it.
This has been said a thousand times over, but somehow, nobody ever seems to get it.
If they are really worried about it, perhaps they should stop publishing their content on the Internet. Of course, that would kill them. So would a paywall.
They built their business in an age where creating copies of a newspaper required expensive equipment. That age is gone. To be perfectly honest, the age of "news as a business" is on its way out -- it is time for us to start looking at new ways to pay journalists for their services. Either that, or newspapers need to come up with a really good business model, one that is not based on attacking people who spread the news further.
It is interesting that you use the word "protect" to describe the activities of these companies. What exactly are they protecting? It is not the works themselves -- the works are protected by being distributed as widely as possible, so that they do not become lost or forgotten.
What is being "protected" here is an out of date business model, created in an era where making a high quality copy required specialized and expensive equipment. Now things are different, and less than a week's pay at minimum wage is sufficient to make perfect copies of music or movies, and the practice is widespread. Instead of updating business models to reflect the reality of the 21st century, what are these companies doing? Attacking people and attacking technology, hoping to turn back the clock.
Why should we feel sympathy for companies that engage in that sort of behavior? These companies are not protecting anything, they are just trying to scare people away from modern technology through malicious litigation, and trying to turn a profit in that process. I feel no sympathy for them, and I certainly won't defend their abuse of the American judicial system by suggesting that they are "protecting" anything.
Not long at all, and I would say that these kids stand out for not being anonymous. When I was in high school, kids would routinely print their opinions on pieces of paper and tape the paper up on the school walls; this was just before the rise of MySpace. It was rare that anyone could figure out who was actually posting the papers, since everyone was smart enough to avoid teachers and security guards.
"A group of cops beating up a person looks extreme until you find out that person was resisting arrest and put both the cop and civilians in danger."
Whenever I hear "resisting arrest," I immediately think, "what was the person being arrested for?" Seriously, to have "resisting arrest" be a separate crime is just a gateway to police abuse and tyranny.
That being said, there is no organized conspiracy on the part of criminals to discredit the police. Ordinary citizens are the ones posting videos of police officers beating people up, and that means that (at least some) common people no longer trust the police. The solution to the problem is not to try to make criminals out of people who are recording the police (which only worsen the problem by pitting the police against those very people), but to restore the public's trust in law enforcement.
You can think about why people might have lost their faith in the system, but I would guess that it has something to do with the fact that we have imprisoned so many people that we now rival 20th century dictatorships. It could also have something to do with the clear racial bias in those incarcerations: we now hold a higher percentage of our black population in prison than South Africa did under apartheid. Is it any surprise that people might resent the police, who represent the most public face of this system of mass arrests?
Except, of course, the small scale farming communes that operate on a communist system at the local level. I guess if we just ignore that part of the real world, your post is spot on.
Believe it or not, there are still people in the world who have not swallowed the "greed is good" mantra.
I once read the back of a Greyhound ticket, and I am pretty sure it said something to the effect of "change the terms of this agreement without notice." Now, I would not say it is really a comparison, since they would be hard pressed to charge people extra for a ticket they already purchased or to pull other "bait and switch" schemes, but that sort of legalese is not really unique to tech companies.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point was more about what should be prioritized when it comes to replacing vehicles; you cannot get everyone to replace all of their cars at the same time. So, if you are working on a policy for the US government, what sort of policy should you push? You could give a tax credit to everyone whose vehicle gets more than 40MPG, but what about all of those people who need a large, less fuel efficient vehicle? They won't have any incentive to replace their guzzler, even though it would be a lot better for them to do so.
In fact, the two cases are not interchangeable. Suppose the problem is dressed up a little: you have two cars that you use on a regular basis (this is not negotiable), but only enough money to replace one of them. One car gets 33MPG, and the other gets 10MPG. If you replace the 33MPG car, you can get a 50MPG vehicle. If you replace the 10MPG, you can get a 20MPG vehicle. Which would save more gas, replacing the 33MPG car or the 10MPG car?
It really depends on the comparison you are making. If you currently have a 10MPG vehicle, and you have a choice between 20MPG and 50MPG, clearly the 50MPG car is the winner. On the other hand, if you have two families, one driving a 33MPG compact, the other driving an old 10MPG station wagon, and you can choose to encourage the first to buy a 50MPG hybrid or encourage the second to buy a 20MPG SUV, which policy should you pursue?
The point TFA is trying to make is that there are a lot of people out there who need a large vehicle, perhaps because they have a large family, or because they need to transport some sort of equipment around for their work, or whatever. Such vehicles are not going to get 50MPG (at least not with the current state of car manufacturing), but 20MPG is not unreasonable.
My zoned high school (which I thankfully did not attend) boasted a 30-40% "at or above grade level" scoring rate on the statewide basic algebra exam, at least as recently as 2005. This was considered an improvement over the rate from the 90s, which hovered around 25%. I am not at all surprised that so few people can see through a basic ratios problem like the one given in TFA, even though my high school is (hopefully) not representative of the norm.
The way I see it, the issue is that we should not be setting a precedent of awarding ludicrous amounts of money. If Limewire is ordered to pay over a trillion dollars, it allows the copyright lobby to hold the threat of similar payouts over the heads over more innocent companies, should those companies do something the lobby does not approve of. The fact that Limewire happens to install spyware does not mean it is a good thing for an absurd ruling against them.
"And do anyone believe them?"
The scary thing is not that people believe these studies, but that the people who seem to believe these numbers the most are in a position to pass laws. People in congress hear that teenagers are downloading video games at no cost, and immediately think, "What?! Not the sort of business-driven approach that we envisioned?! Billions of dollars lost? Let's start passing laws to punish all these pirates! Let's try to force other countries to do the same!"
As I recall, this is the same man who declared the iPad having the ability to browse the web to be something unique that no other device on the market can do.
Those were also the days of the rise of science and the scientific method, the invention of printing press, and the beginnings of the industrial revolution. I suppose all those things should be done away with, simply because they happened at the same time as the negative things you mentioned?
I am thinking more in terms of a system where journalism is viewed as a public service, so the public pays for it, and the public has the right to copy and disseminate the news as much as they want. Instead of the law being used to limit the spread of that information, the law would be rewritten to prevent abuses of the system, and to ensure that the public has access to reliable and accurate news.
Actually, the whole point of the GPL is that the authors of creative works should not retain absolute control over the distribution of the work. The fact that the GPL uses copyright law as a means to that end is entirely incidental; it would have been just as effective to rewrite the law itself to grant the public the same rights that the GPL grants.
The whole "GPL is built on copyrights, so free software supporters should not opposed other uses of the copyright system" is misleading and attempts to portray the GPL as another case of "creators get to decide the rules." The point of the GPL is to improve the public's access to software, and the philosophy is based on improving the public's access to information and creative works in general. Sure, dismantling the copyright system entirely, without creating a new set of laws protecting the public's access to creative works, would be a problem for free software supporters. Replacing the current copyright system with a new system that encourages sharing and increases the ability of people to find information, that is perfectly fine for a free software supporter.
You have failed to prove that people who are reading the articles on those websites would have otherwise read the articles on the newspaper's official site. What reason is there to believe that people are flocking to these unofficial websites, as opposed to them simply not reading the articles at all? Maybe everyone is too busy on their favorite social networking website. Maybe some random blogger's opinion seems more relevant to people than a journalist's.
So I'll ask you again: prove it.
"they'll stop "sharing" when the newspapers go out of business too."
Why? People will just find a new source for their news. Now that we have a massive, globally deployed network that enables fast communication, news spreads quickly. Of course, good, solid journalism is another story, but the age of greed based journalism is at its end. It is time for a new system to be devised, where journalists are paid for their work without having to rely on the scarcity of information.
"Yeah, getting paid for your work is so out of date!"
Where did I say people should not get paid? I have no problem with people getting paid for their work. My problem is that these companies are attacking the general public. As far as I am concerned, it is time to find a new way to pay journalists and artists. "You're also forgetting that copyright law is vitally important to the GPL and creative commons too."
Please point out where I said we should repeal copyright law. All I said was that it is time for the focus to shift away from greed and toward improving the public's ability to access creative works.
Maybe newspapers could refuse to publish stories unless a certain number of people subscribe? Or, perhaps it is time to change the system at a more fundamental level, and not have news be treated as a business, but as a public service?
Yeah, that second one sounds nice. A system where the public pays for the news. Where the law protects the public's interest in having access to reliable news, rather than putting the public in danger if they dare to disseminate the news further. Or, if the thought of the government paying for news makes you uncomfortable, perhaps it is time for the general public to set up a source of financing that is independent from the government, to pay for news. You know, the people looking out for their own interests.
It is interesting how you dismiss a moral argument as "flimsy," and then present a greed based argument as the solution. Last I checked, the most successful news-driven-by-profit-motive operation was Fox News; do you want to see all news sources degenerate to that level?
You know, I can still remember a time when the Web and the Internet in general were being hailed as the coming of a golden age of information availability, where people would be able to find information faster than ever before. What happened to that view of the Internet?
Oh, that's right, a group of people whose businesses are based on information not being available started suing people left and right.
"If you reproduce a large part of the article or somehow intercept the readers, it has the same effect as stealing some money directly from their bank account."
Prove it -- prove that if I distribute a copy of some article, it will result in money being lost on the part of the newspaper. Prove that the people reading my copy of the article would have otherwise paid money for it.
This has been said a thousand times over, but somehow, nobody ever seems to get it.
Explain how limiting the distribution of information "protects" that information.
If they are really worried about it, perhaps they should stop publishing their content on the Internet. Of course, that would kill them. So would a paywall.
They built their business in an age where creating copies of a newspaper required expensive equipment. That age is gone. To be perfectly honest, the age of "news as a business" is on its way out -- it is time for us to start looking at new ways to pay journalists for their services. Either that, or newspapers need to come up with a really good business model, one that is not based on attacking people who spread the news further.
It is interesting that you use the word "protect" to describe the activities of these companies. What exactly are they protecting? It is not the works themselves -- the works are protected by being distributed as widely as possible, so that they do not become lost or forgotten.
What is being "protected" here is an out of date business model, created in an era where making a high quality copy required specialized and expensive equipment. Now things are different, and less than a week's pay at minimum wage is sufficient to make perfect copies of music or movies, and the practice is widespread. Instead of updating business models to reflect the reality of the 21st century, what are these companies doing? Attacking people and attacking technology, hoping to turn back the clock.
Why should we feel sympathy for companies that engage in that sort of behavior? These companies are not protecting anything, they are just trying to scare people away from modern technology through malicious litigation, and trying to turn a profit in that process. I feel no sympathy for them, and I certainly won't defend their abuse of the American judicial system by suggesting that they are "protecting" anything.
It is not cowardly to be anonymous, despite what /. might tell you.
Not long at all, and I would say that these kids stand out for not being anonymous. When I was in high school, kids would routinely print their opinions on pieces of paper and tape the paper up on the school walls; this was just before the rise of MySpace. It was rare that anyone could figure out who was actually posting the papers, since everyone was smart enough to avoid teachers and security guards.
"A group of cops beating up a person looks extreme until you find out that person was resisting arrest and put both the cop and civilians in danger."
Whenever I hear "resisting arrest," I immediately think, "what was the person being arrested for?" Seriously, to have "resisting arrest" be a separate crime is just a gateway to police abuse and tyranny.
That being said, there is no organized conspiracy on the part of criminals to discredit the police. Ordinary citizens are the ones posting videos of police officers beating people up, and that means that (at least some) common people no longer trust the police. The solution to the problem is not to try to make criminals out of people who are recording the police (which only worsen the problem by pitting the police against those very people), but to restore the public's trust in law enforcement.
You can think about why people might have lost their faith in the system, but I would guess that it has something to do with the fact that we have imprisoned so many people that we now rival 20th century dictatorships. It could also have something to do with the clear racial bias in those incarcerations: we now hold a higher percentage of our black population in prison than South Africa did under apartheid. Is it any surprise that people might resent the police, who represent the most public face of this system of mass arrests?
http://trueslant.com/barrettbrown/2010/03/24/cia-state-department-apparently-acting-on-plan-to-destroy-wikileaks/
Except, of course, the small scale farming communes that operate on a communist system at the local level. I guess if we just ignore that part of the real world, your post is spot on.
Believe it or not, there are still people in the world who have not swallowed the "greed is good" mantra.
I once read the back of a Greyhound ticket, and I am pretty sure it said something to the effect of "change the terms of this agreement without notice." Now, I would not say it is really a comparison, since they would be hard pressed to charge people extra for a ticket they already purchased or to pull other "bait and switch" schemes, but that sort of legalese is not really unique to tech companies.