". ..let me know if you're ever in Charlotte NC and I'll buy you a beer.
Help! Help! He's trying to kill me off!":) If I was trying to kill you off I would never have offered to buy you a beer! I'd have offered you a kool-aid...
I'll reiterate, if you've got a point to make, do so...without obfuscation.
"No."
Hmmm. I could take that several different ways. How about this, I'll take it in the least negative way possible and assume that you have as good or even better sense of humor than I do. That being said, let me know if you're ever in Charlotte NC and I'll buy you a beer.
Are you talking about "Ideas may come in a flash, or evade forever."?
"Which is the clue that I'm not talking about thinking."
If you've got a point to make, please do so.
"Think."
Yup, I'm still clueless. Are you talking about a "flash of inspiration"? If so, doesn't some prior thought have to have gone into the problem? No one has a flash of inspiration without having put the thought into identifying a problem or goal. If so, you still haven't stated how that is not labor. I've already put way too much LABOR into trying to decipher your ramblings. I'll reiterate, if you've got a point to make, do so...without obfuscation.
"Just disagreeing on our definition of the word "labor".
That's what I was doing; and within the context of a specific provided example.
Think about it. It might take some effort."
Okay troll, right. I've put some effort into it and I'm still clueless. Are you talking about "Ideas may come in a flash, or evade forever."? If so, I consider that a partial truism. Ideas also come about from a slow, plodding, methodical effort. Your generalization is half-assed. If you've got a point to make, please do so. You haven't stated how you disagree with my (and the general use) definition of "labor" and you certainly haven't clearly provided your interpretation of the context involved in the "specific provided example".
No you didn't. You said, "Ideas are not the product of labor."
Definition of labor according to Merriam-Webster, just the first/primary definition:
Main Entry: 1labor Pronunciation: 'lA-b&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French labur, from Latin labor; perhaps akin to Latin labare to totter, labi to slip -- more at SLEEP 1 a : expenditure of physical or mental effort especially when difficult or compulsory
Please note: "physical or mental effort". I'm not trying to nitpick. Just disagreeing on our definition of the word "labor".
Respectfully, I have to disagree. Some of my best ideas have come from pondering over a problem. Pondering can be effort. It's not like daydreaming. To think about a problem and apply logic to try and come up with a resolution requires effort in many, if not most, cases.
"But if software is at all interesting, it's because no one else has done it before."
"Interesting" to me means something new and/or unknown...mostly. There are exceptions. Treading new ground always requires greater effort. If I cut a my way through virgin jungle then those who follow have a path.
"But as big as viacom is, their income depends on viewership. Viewership depends on awareness, and to promote awareness, they do employ advertising."
I'm talking about their content; entire shows, movies, etc. being out there for free. No advertising revenue! "Hey, we were number one on YouTube! Yeah, well your commercials were cut out of the show/movie...but, we were number one!" There might be a slight market because of product placement in the content but that won't cut it with the companies they rely on for advertising revenue. Where is the revenue for Viacom and their sponsors? Free publicity does not cut it for a company that has already made their place in the world. They don't need the publicity or their shit wouldn't be so popular on YouTube in the first place.
"Would you want your content out there for free if you could otherwise get paid for it?
That depends... if I happened to release a music video then by all means I'd want that sucker on youtube."
We're mostly on the same page but I think you and others are missing a crucial point I'm trying to make..."if you could OTHERWISE get paid for it". Yeah, free publicity is GREAT!!! But, we're talking about Viacom. They have plenty of publicity and a big following already. If my small, minor, mostly unnoticed content was getting play I'd be happy as shit. Viacom is huge already. They are a business and expect their content to bring in revenue. They have to protect their content. If they don't then their revenue declines and so do they. The stockholders are ones they are trying to protect...and, some of us might even own some of their stock.
"Blasphemy! Any media company that sues to protect its IP must be stopped! Because if we get rid of viacom, then we wont get sued for stealing their stuff!... wait, but they wont make any more stuff... uh OK, I got it! we'll make it a law that they HAVE to make good quality content FOR FREE and not do a damn thing about it when people upload copies online! And somehow, we'll convince ourselves that it was in viacom's best interest, because we saw the clips and then watched the shows on TV... even if that's BS and P2P is still the largest distributor of online music..."
Slughead and shithead, great band name!...thanks dude/ette. I think we're singing the same song. Let's copyright it and sue the fuckers who steal it! Thanks for your insightful irony and sarcasm.:)
"Such viewpoints undermine the value of information creation and distribution. Most of the time when I speak it's because I think I have at least some bit of insight that might be valuable to contribute to others. Don't you think there is a sacrifice of credibility when the motive for content creation is no longer dialog or social interaction, but is rather profit? Two questions we should answer: (1) how did our society come to expect people to pay them for information?, and (2) what is the most appropriate method of changing that?"
We're talking about Viacom. Their whole BUSINESS is based on creating and selling content. Their information ain't free!!! Just because I can rip off their content and put it on the intarnet it should be free? Don't think so Sparky...
Now I'll try to answer your questions... "(1) how did our society come to expect people to pay them for information?" -I expect to pay people for content they create unless they willingly give it to me for free. Just like I buy books at the bookstore, magazines from the news stand, and internet service from my ISP. "(2) what is the most appropriate method of changing that?" -Buy yourself a country and become a dictator. Then, you can allow anything your citizens create, or you can steal from other countries, to be free (within the boundaries of your country). If you choose to join the "free" world, that requires following their LAWS.
"Absolutely, however GooTube is pretty good about removing material when asked to do so by copyright holders. The problem is that it keeps getting re-uploaded, and the DMCA doesn't (as far as I know) allow for blanket removal. That is, each instance of infringement must be included in the DMCA takedown request. So Viacom has to constantly monitor the site and send out the requests, and someone at Youtube has to take them down, one by one."
I agree completely. While Viacom has the right to ask for the material to be removed...it's their unfortunate (or not) responsibility to make the requests. If it bothers them enough, they'll sit back down and the table and compromise. However, the ball is in their court, it's their choice to compromise or just be dicks.
"The number of people with security clearances pales in comparison to those who do NOT have security clearances and is therefore a completely moot point."
So you're going to moot out tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people? That's pretty harsh. There's a lot of folks out there with security clearances...federal government, state government, military, contractors...others... Would you moot blacks, Hispanics, and Asians because they are minorities in the US? Hey! Let's bring back slavery, put those chinks to doing laundry, and get those wetbacks to landscaping and doing the dishes. Who the fuck are you to determine a whole segment of society, granted a minority, is moot?
Viacom is just saying, "It's our content, give us what we want or you can't host it...pay to play suckers!!!". Fault them if you wish but they are well within their rights. Viacom is operating from a position of having the law behind them. Because of that, they get to dictate terms. If they don't like the offer they can tell YouTube to fuck off and die. Maybe the folks uploading the content are ultimately at fault for the copyright violations but YouTube has the responsibility for removing that material at Viacom's demand. Would you want your content out there for free if you could otherwise get paid for it?
"If they are not interested in the everyday home user then why on earth would they be currently in the middle of ploughing through half a billion dollars woth of mass market TV adverts trying to convince people to go "Wow" when they first see Vista?"
Good point. I think however that their marketing campaign towards the end user is really nothing more than trying to justify why folks should buy new PCs with Vista. Folks buy new PC, get Vista, AND upgrade to the new Office. The OS is a freebie and the bonus is selling the new version of Office. Most folks could probably stay with their previous version of Office.
"Although 80% of the changes in Windows Vista are positive, there is nothing about Vista that is truly innovative or compelling; there's no transformational, gotta-have-it feature in Vista. "
They attempted to improve their security and GUI. Any additional features were already available as third party add ons or with different OS's. Were we really expecting anything else? Time will tell if their attempts were successful. I for one have no interest in Vista other than possibly having to use it at work.
"His opinion is that Microsoft has stopped focusing on end users. They 'now seemingly make many decisions based on these two things: 1. Avoiding negative publicity (especially about security and software quality) 2. Making sure the largest enterprise customers are happy."
Again, no surprise here... Marketing is all about positive publicity and MS recognizes that their bread and butter is evolving into the large, medium, and small corporate entities that are locked into their OS and apps...not the everyday home end user.
"If you're in such a position, you probably earn enough money so that DRM doesn't matter."
Sorry...you're wrong. There are plenty of folks out there with security clearances who earn little enough that is does matter. Think about the bottom rung...can you say rent-a-cop?
"Romania passed anti-piracy laws nearly 10 years ago, but nearly 70 percent of software used in the country continues to be of an illicit nature." "See any serious problems with this story? Email our on-duty editor. "
No problem here...business as usual...
As the big player, Microsoft will have to contend with issue for a long, long time.
Slashdot Mirror
"If I was trying to kill you off I would never have offered to buy you a beer! I'd have offered you a kool-aid...
:(
Well that wouldn't work for shit. I don't have a kool-aid intolerance."
Jim Jones' cult members had a serious kool-aid intolerance.
". . .let me know if you're ever in Charlotte NC and I'll buy you a beer.
:) If I was trying to kill you off I would never have offered to buy you a beer! I'd have offered you a kool-aid...
Help! Help! He's trying to kill me off!"
I'll reiterate, if you've got a point to make, do so...without obfuscation.
"No."
Hmmm. I could take that several different ways. How about this, I'll take it in the least negative way possible and assume that you have as good or even better sense of humor than I do. That being said, let me know if you're ever in Charlotte NC and I'll buy you a beer.
almann@caro(obfuscation)lina.rr.c(obfuscation)om
Are you talking about "Ideas may come in a flash, or evade forever."?
"Which is the clue that I'm not talking about thinking."
If you've got a point to make, please do so.
"Think."
Yup, I'm still clueless. Are you talking about a "flash of inspiration"? If so, doesn't some prior thought have to have gone into the problem? No one has a flash of inspiration without having put the thought into identifying a problem or goal. If so, you still haven't stated how that is not labor. I've already put way too much LABOR into trying to decipher your ramblings. I'll reiterate, if you've got a point to make, do so...without obfuscation.
"Just disagreeing on our definition of the word "labor".
That's what I was doing; and within the context of a specific provided example.
Think about it. It might take some effort."
Okay troll, right. I've put some effort into it and I'm still clueless. Are you talking about "Ideas may come in a flash, or evade forever."? If so, I consider that a partial truism. Ideas also come about from a slow, plodding, methodical effort. Your generalization is half-assed. If you've got a point to make, please do so. You haven't stated how you disagree with my (and the general use) definition of "labor" and you certainly haven't clearly provided your interpretation of the context involved in the "specific provided example".
"What I did not say is that thinking is easy."
No you didn't. You said, "Ideas are not the product of labor."
Definition of labor according to Merriam-Webster, just the first/primary definition:
Main Entry: 1labor
Pronunciation: 'lA-b&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French labur, from Latin labor; perhaps akin to Latin labare to totter, labi to slip -- more at SLEEP
1 a : expenditure of physical or mental effort especially when difficult or compulsory
Please note: "physical or mental effort". I'm not trying to nitpick. Just disagreeing on our definition of the word "labor".
"Ideas are not the product of labor."
Respectfully, I have to disagree. Some of my best ideas have come from pondering over a problem. Pondering can be effort. It's not like daydreaming. To think about a problem and apply logic to try and come up with a resolution requires effort in many, if not most, cases.
"Now paper bags have all but disappeared."
Where do you shop? All of the major grocery stores in my area (Harris Teeter, Food Lion, etc.) offer paper bags.
"But if software is at all interesting, it's because no one else has done it before."
"Interesting" to me means something new and/or unknown...mostly. There are exceptions. Treading new ground always requires greater effort. If I cut a my way through virgin jungle then those who follow have a path.
At least they must have some clue about fixes for the issues. It looks like they have a pretty good idea of where Vista breaks iTunes
Now, let me climb into my tinfoil bunker...
The evil that is Microsoft has intentionally released Vista just to break iTunes and promote their own music player!
"But as big as viacom is, their income depends on viewership. Viewership depends on awareness, and to promote awareness, they do employ advertising."
I'm talking about their content; entire shows, movies, etc. being out there for free. No advertising revenue! "Hey, we were number one on YouTube! Yeah, well your commercials were cut out of the show/movie...but, we were number one!" There might be a slight market because of product placement in the content but that won't cut it with the companies they rely on for advertising revenue. Where is the revenue for Viacom and their sponsors? Free publicity does not cut it for a company that has already made their place in the world. They don't need the publicity or their shit wouldn't be so popular on YouTube in the first place.
"Would you want your content out there for free if you could otherwise get paid for it?
That depends... if I happened to release a music video then by all means I'd want that sucker on youtube."
We're mostly on the same page but I think you and others are missing a crucial point I'm trying to make..."if you could OTHERWISE get paid for it". Yeah, free publicity is GREAT!!! But, we're talking about Viacom. They have plenty of publicity and a big following already. If my small, minor, mostly unnoticed content was getting play I'd be happy as shit. Viacom is huge already. They are a business and expect their content to bring in revenue. They have to protect their content. If they don't then their revenue declines and so do they. The stockholders are ones they are trying to protect...and, some of us might even own some of their stock.
"Blasphemy! Any media company that sues to protect its IP must be stopped! ... wait, but they wont make any more stuff... uh OK, I got it! we'll make it a law that they HAVE to make good quality content FOR FREE and not do a damn thing about it when people upload copies online!
...thanks dude/ette. I think we're singing the same song. Let's copyright it and sue the fuckers who steal it! Thanks for your insightful irony and sarcasm. :)
Because if we get rid of viacom, then we wont get sued for stealing their stuff!
And somehow, we'll convince ourselves that it was in viacom's best interest, because we saw the clips and then watched the shows on TV... even if that's BS and P2P is still the largest distributor of online music..."
Slughead and shithead, great band name!
Whoa there Socrates!!!
"Such viewpoints undermine the value of information creation and distribution. Most of the time when I speak it's because I think I have at least some bit of insight that might be valuable to contribute to others. Don't you think there is a sacrifice of credibility when the motive for content creation is no longer dialog or social interaction, but is rather profit? Two questions we should answer: (1) how did our society come to expect people to pay them for information?, and (2) what is the most appropriate method of changing that?"
We're talking about Viacom. Their whole BUSINESS is based on creating and selling content. Their information ain't free!!! Just because I can rip off their content and put it on the intarnet it should be free? Don't think so Sparky...
Now I'll try to answer your questions...
"(1) how did our society come to expect people to pay them for information?"
-I expect to pay people for content they create unless they willingly give it to me for free. Just like I buy books at the bookstore, magazines from the news stand, and internet service from my ISP.
"(2) what is the most appropriate method of changing that?"
-Buy yourself a country and become a dictator. Then, you can allow anything your citizens create, or you can steal from other countries, to be free (within the boundaries of your country). If you choose to join the "free" world, that requires following their LAWS.
"Absolutely, however GooTube is pretty good about removing material when asked to do so by copyright holders. The problem is that it keeps getting re-uploaded, and the DMCA doesn't (as far as I know) allow for blanket removal. That is, each instance of infringement must be included in the DMCA takedown request. So Viacom has to constantly monitor the site and send out the requests, and someone at Youtube has to take them down, one by one."
I agree completely. While Viacom has the right to ask for the material to be removed...it's their unfortunate (or not) responsibility to make the requests. If it bothers them enough, they'll sit back down and the table and compromise. However, the ball is in their court, it's their choice to compromise or just be dicks.
"The number of people with security clearances pales in comparison to those who do NOT have security clearances and is therefore a completely moot point."
So you're going to moot out tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people? That's pretty harsh. There's a lot of folks out there with security clearances...federal government, state government, military, contractors...others... Would you moot blacks, Hispanics, and Asians because they are minorities in the US? Hey! Let's bring back slavery, put those chinks to doing laundry, and get those wetbacks to landscaping and doing the dishes. Who the fuck are you to determine a whole segment of society, granted a minority, is moot?
Viacom is just saying, "It's our content, give us what we want or you can't host it...pay to play suckers!!!". Fault them if you wish but they are well within their rights. Viacom is operating from a position of having the law behind them. Because of that, they get to dictate terms. If they don't like the offer they can tell YouTube to fuck off and die. Maybe the folks uploading the content are ultimately at fault for the copyright violations but YouTube has the responsibility for removing that material at Viacom's demand. Would you want your content out there for free if you could otherwise get paid for it?
"False advertising. Nvidia claimed that the cards were "Vista Ready.""
Sue MS...Vista isn't ready!!!
"I mean, Bruce Springsteen was born to run, but how often do you see him jogging around?"
:P
Bruce Springsteen gives me the runs...you're dating yourself too.
"If they are not interested in the everyday home user then why on earth would they be currently in the middle of ploughing through half a billion dollars woth of mass market TV adverts trying to convince people to go "Wow" when they first see Vista?"
Good point. I think however that their marketing campaign towards the end user is really nothing more than trying to justify why folks should buy new PCs with Vista. Folks buy new PC, get Vista, AND upgrade to the new Office. The OS is a freebie and the bonus is selling the new version of Office. Most folks could probably stay with their previous version of Office.
"Although 80% of the changes in Windows Vista are positive, there is nothing about Vista that is truly innovative or compelling; there's no transformational, gotta-have-it feature in Vista. "
They attempted to improve their security and GUI. Any additional features were already available as third party add ons or with different OS's. Were we really expecting anything else? Time will tell if their attempts were successful. I for one have no interest in Vista other than possibly having to use it at work.
"His opinion is that Microsoft has stopped focusing on end users. They 'now seemingly make many decisions based on these two things: 1. Avoiding negative publicity (especially about security and software quality) 2. Making sure the largest enterprise customers are happy."
Again, no surprise here... Marketing is all about positive publicity and MS recognizes that their bread and butter is evolving into the large, medium, and small corporate entities that are locked into their OS and apps...not the everyday home end user.
"If you're in such a position, you probably earn enough money so that DRM doesn't matter."
Sorry...you're wrong. There are plenty of folks out there with security clearances who earn little enough that is does matter. Think about the bottom rung...can you say rent-a-cop?
"Every person you can successfully move off of a windows running unauthorized windows is a gain for free software."
;)
:)
No argument here...
"My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love"
My onions listen for the gentle dripping of your tears.
"This just in: Romania destroyed by what appears to have been a bombardment of chairs. More at 11."
:)
OMFG!!!! Not the chair bombardment! Are you sure they didn't pirate 11 also? Maybe more at 12 instead.
"Romania passed anti-piracy laws nearly 10 years ago, but nearly 70 percent of software used in the country continues to be of an illicit nature."
"See any serious problems with this story? Email our on-duty editor. "
No problem here...business as usual...
As the big player, Microsoft will have to contend with issue for a long, long time.