Don't do it. Don't engage in the illegal sharing of copyrighted materials. No joke, no troll. It's an expensive offence to commit, due to its often exponential growth in damages, and most people can't afford it. If you can't afford the thousands it takes to settle these cases, then just stop doing it right now. Go on. If you "need" a game, have a look at some of the free (in either sense) games floating around on the internet, or buy some quality second-hand, or older, cheap, but still very good games at your local games store. It's going to be a helluva lot cheaper than paying any settlement, believe me.
What's wrong with net neutrality? It's a network, it's completely neutral to any party. It has absolutely no influence over the data and its intended destination; it's just completely neutral. I really can't think how the word "equality" applies.
And here's the real kicker, proprietary anti-virus scanners, the stuff you are trying to claim is the pinnacle of software QA, didn't know about it till March.
Yes, but unfortunately, that delay also needs to be factored in. The mere fact a piece of malicious code hasn't been formally identified doesn't make it any less dangerous.
So? If someone slips in a trojan into their software that is undetectable to their virus scanners, as was the case here, how exactly is that big bad QA department going to prevent it from being released? Oh, you mean it won't?
That's a fairly big "if", considering that anyone who has access to the source also has their job and livelihood at stake.
Open Source should be treated with care, just like any other software you download from the net. Stick to the lighted paths and generally you should be fine. In this case, we have user-generated code which can be iffy, but you can feel fairly safe if it has been downloaded and used a number of times. These things usually come out into the open sooner or later.
All Politicians are by this simple definition, evil. They are humans who actively seek possession of power beyond what is a Natural Right for them to possess.
Not necessarily. They are people who use power to whatever ends. Power is useless without some kind of purpose (e.g. personal gain, positive change, etc). They may not be seeking power, but seeking some undetermined goal, even if that goal, if successfully reached, leaves them powerless (in theory).
Besides, your definition is far too broad and all-encompassing. Just about anyone who participates in any form of politics at any level has more power than what is "rightfully" theirs. If you vote, you're seeking power. If you talk to people about society with the intention to convey your viewpoint, you're seeking power (of influence). If you tell a murderous criminal to "put the gun down", you're seeking power. It's far too broad to actually give meaning to the word evil.
If we have many parties to choose from, we get an altogether different breed of representation. The chances are, you'll find someone who is not evil, and who is committed to doing some good for the electorate. The problem is that evil (at the very least, on this scope) is relative, and what you consider good, someone else will consider evil. You could vote for your favourite, and he may even win, but you leave vast tracts of the population feeling very disgruntled and under-represented. Still, a certain group is happy, and change comes naturally.
With two party politics, both parties constantly play off each other, but only over relatively cosmetic issues. The core issues are mostly the same, and are designed to make everyone only slightly disgruntled. So, next to no-one is really pleased with the resulting government, but no-one is devastatingly unhappy either (hence, the lesser of two evils). The other problem is that change is very slow, because it requires a lot of public focus.
They're different systems, both with their advantages and disadvantages.
If you've read this far and are a normal Slashdotter, then you think that I'm really weird. But, this is how the real world works. It's just that no one ever talks about it like this. Thank you.
Wrong: just about everyone on slashdot who gets moderated past +3 talks like this. And it is not the way the world works. It's close, but there exist subtle and important distinctions between your parallel universe and the one you're living in.
The biggest distinction is that we reward riches, because riches are a reward in themselves. It sounds twisted, but it's true. Riches are an indicator of what you've put into society, and they are treated as such. If you have worked hard (or someone has worked hard to help you, in the case of inheritance), then it usually means you've contributed a lot to some part of society. Add to that, rich people pay a lot of taxes (unless the taxation system is ruthlessly regressive), which inevitably means the richest pay for our government, which means that the rich pay for public infrastructure, floating the economy, resulting in quality of life bonuses for everyone, etc, so naturally being rich is rewarded, and having a business that continues to build riches, doubly so.
The recent (and proposed) additions to copyright law, for example, were not so much to do with the RIAA having money and making the rules, but the RIAA convincing the government that these rules would be beneficial to business, and they certainly would be to the copyright business.
Situations arise where a disappearing revenue source has, for a certain period of time, the ability to envoke the legal system to extort money from people in greater proportion than its social usefullness would have it deserve.
That's right: situations of that nature do arise, but the music industry isn't there yet. It still have many, many millions of happy customers, and a significant of unhappy consumers, so called because they "consume" the product, without actually being a customer (i.e. pirates).
Their usefulness is still in producing the music that you borrow from the library in CD form, even if you don't pay for it. Without them, there is absolutely no guarantee that you or anyone else would have access to that same music. Without strong profit incentives, there's no guarantee that the artist would be creating, let alone that specific work, or that the artist would put enough effort in so that the recording becomes the one you enjoy, or that they'd distribute their materials, etc, etc. Profit motive helps all of that. Copyright is actually bigger than just the RIAA. It helps music (and, more generally, art) as a whole. Piracy subverts all of that.
You say the RIAA is dead, but that's not necessarily true. It is indeed leaking profits, but that is generally attributed to the lack of immediacy of music. It's simply quicker and easier to find your music online, legal or not. The RIAA is slowly wising up to this fact, and even though they can't really match pirated/free music for immediacy (they are still a business after all), they can still salvage some profits from their losses. Either way, they lose their current standing, but they certainly don't die. That won't happen until not even a niche market can't support their music. I'm willing to bet that that won't happen for a good 10 years at least.
The music industry insists that this is illegal in their parallel universe. And, there was a time when it appeared that the RIAA was going to take on the US Library Association. But the librarians have been dealing with assholes like this for 300 years and have their arguments in order. It always come down to this point: yes, library users copy the most popular music recordings. Which does cut sales to a minor degree. But the 50,000 libraries buy (at full retail cost) one copy each of thousands of titles that wouldn't be selling 50,000 copies if the libraries weren't buying it. Basically, the library makes available music for people
You actually think we'd be better off without lawyers? If we don't have lawyers, then we have people acting like lawyers who do a worse job. You think our legal system is fucked? Wait until the laws is argued by incompetents. Corporations lose their legal power, but so does everyone. Eventually it'll be the people who have the best rhetorical skills who get justice, or at least something resembling it. Everyone else would have to eat shit.
Correction: new music (my bad). The old stuff will be cycled and recycled until everyone gives up and goes home. Ah, but now that you mention it, perhaps it will come to that if people keep on screwing Big Copyright and laughing in their faces. Could you really blame them?
Just finished replying to a previous post of yours. I don't know why we're having two different simultaneous discussions on the same topic, but what the hell.
I'm sorry, but the rest of the paragraph I got your quote from doesn't make any sense, unless you're trying to prove my point.
You claimed they were obsolete. I had no idea why you would think that, so I went through some of the more common and/or logical definitions for obsolete, and showed that the RIAA doesn't meet any of those requirements. It appears you're measuring the obsoleteness of the RIAA in terms of how many CDs they sell, but unfortunately for you, that measurement is now becoming obsolete in itself. The music industry is evolving as far as commercial music distribution can evolve while still maintaining commercial viability. It's branching into digital music, and I can't see why it's obsolete.
None at all. Did I say so?
Not in this thread. You are showing some degree of contempt for it though, judging by your habits of downloading tracks and visiting shows (paying money on your forced terms, not theirs).
That's a fallacy. * Things that come at a cost are not quality-guaranteed. I wouldn't define Britney Spears as quality. * Things that are free are not inferior either. I could've got latest Radiohead's for free (the fact that I paid a bit for it is besides the point). I'm writing this from a computer I never paid for (recycled) running Linux.
No it's not a fallacy, and you proved my point. You don't need Britney if you have Radiohead. Why would you bother pirating/buying legally restricted media if the free media market was adequate for your tastes/needs? Hint: it obviously isn't if you're turning to piracy, or perhaps you're a sociopath who prefers breaking laws. Now that we've (hopefully) established that the free media isn't quite adequate for you, then perhaps you need to reassess your position on the music labels and its obsoleteness, since they are pulling a small amount of weight in the job of entertaining you.
And you've got it all wrong. I pay for music when I buy an album off Magnatune. I donate to artists on Jamendo whenever I like their music. I pay for a subscription at Last.fm. I download music that wasn't meant to be distributed for free, too.
No, that's pretty much where I had you pegged. Although you seem more reasonable than my knee-jerk impression of you was which explains me being such an dick to you in a different subthread. Sorry:)
Anyway, it is undeniable that certain forms of art, music especially, is becoming easier to produce, and thanks to the internet, anyone can distribute. However, as easy as it is to create, creativity (and time honing it) is still a commodity that people will pay for. It's not just equipment cost and distribution costs that gives the product value. If it were, then everyone would be creating their own music; they wouldn't need to even bother downloading free content. The fact is that music has value, and while it continues to have value, I see no problem with facilitating a market for it. Thanks to information's undying wish to become worthless, it has taken legislative measures to make sure music (and other art forms) don't become obsolete, and that their inherent value can be properly used to encourage creation, and give artists compensation for their efforts (proportional to demand, of course).
Who loses out on this deal? The record companies, of course. The CD manufacturers too. Record shops. Distributors. Millionaire bands. So what?
(non-millionaire bands as well, don't forget)
Whatever labels signed the signed artists that you are listening to, they bought the copyrights off the artists, who's income relies on the initial evaluation of the copyright's worth. That copyright's worth is based on the demand for the music, and consequently how much control it affords over the work (since the latter partially controls the former). By not paying for certain pieces of music, you are devaluing the copyrights for your own personal gain. It affects the artists you're trying to support, it affects the middlemen, and it affects any artist to come who wishes to be signed. Of course, your small part in this fiasco is probably small, but it adds up when you look at so many people.
I know you probably couldn't care less if another artist isn't signed again, but you can't assume that such works would have existed if everyone had ignored copyrights prior to their creation. For all you know, the profit motive, the possibility of making a career to put food on the table out of music may have played an invaluable part. The only way to safely find out for sure is to legitimately stop sucking on the RIAA's teat. Show them it's not your desire for free (as in beer) stuff driving you, rather a desire for free (as in speech) stuff, and for the freedom to share. If people followed suit, it would indeed prove the labels are obsolete (but I don't think they are).
Well the company that this guy was talking about is clearly idiotic. It is clear that such irresponsible behaviour is offensive to all of us, and they should be cut from any discussions and/or debates on the topic. The paste which holds the fabric of society together is the news, and it shall remain that way until the end of time. This company has abused that fact. They knowingly abused it. This company takes and takes and takes, on and on it goes, and it gives new meaning to the word greed.
Read the bold print. Next time I may not be able to fit the rest in.
Hey, it's you again, spouting similar self-serving nonsense.
What makes you think the music industry is obsolete? Is it because they're not using modern technology to full advantage? Nope, it can't be that. They're using iTunes, which, coincidentally, you happen to mention on your list of "modern" solutions to music distribution. Is it because they're not making any money? Nope, it can't be that either (unless they've declared themselves bankrupt in the last couple of hours). Is it because information wants to be free? Could be. It seems a fairly lofty and impractical view of the situation, certainly no position for calling for scrapping of multi-million dollar industries, especially one that brings so much entertainment to the world.
What's your problem with copyright anyway? What's it doing to you? It need only affect the people who involve themselves with it. You don't have to buy it. You don't have to dictate to the world what they want. They will choose for themselves whether or not they want the RIAA, or any or all of the music styles they produce. If you like your information to be free, then take only information that is free, legitimately. I know it's painful giving up all that RIAA crap that you claim the world doesn't need, but that's the price of free. Good things come at a cost, and if they don't, why are you wasting your time with inferior and illegal products? Stick it to the RIAA, and download legit!
Yeah, at the expense of the people who brought the band to you, who organised the tour, and who got them where they are today. Besides, if all you pay artists to do is to sell t-shirts and play live gigs every once in a blue moon, then that's all they'll do. If you like recording as I and so many others do (Remember them? They're those things that confirmed the band was any good in the first place?), then I suggest you start paying for them. That also goes for anyone who cares about their P2P file-sharing rights, because, mark my words, if it keeps being used for illegitimate purposes, it will be made illegal. This is not just the **AA's power talking, it's the fact that particularly short-sighted people are currently abusing it for personal gain at the expense of the copyright owners.
How do you think it would've gone if those guys were nobodies with no significant dough? It sends a wonderful message that if you're not a mainstream artist with a cult following, don't even bother.
Yes, generally you own the copy as I said. DRM poses an interesting possible exception though. It comes with your copy, is not legally allowed to be removed, thus any restriction placed on it must be adhered to. The question is not "what rights do I have, considering I own it?", but "do I own it, considering the rights I have?"
Actually, the best question is "WTF is with the DMCA?"
i don't think current 'commercial music' would completely die off - just as with other niches, new business models can and will work. the market will only reshape, and then become more robust (there have been several showcases lately - nin, radiohead etc).
The market will reduce. Anyone who wishes to make their own copyright-independent business model can and already will do. I'm sorry, but I see no reason to share your optimism.:(
Slashdot Mirror
Don't do it. Don't engage in the illegal sharing of copyrighted materials. No joke, no troll. It's an expensive offence to commit, due to its often exponential growth in damages, and most people can't afford it. If you can't afford the thousands it takes to settle these cases, then just stop doing it right now. Go on. If you "need" a game, have a look at some of the free (in either sense) games floating around on the internet, or buy some quality second-hand, or older, cheap, but still very good games at your local games store. It's going to be a helluva lot cheaper than paying any settlement, believe me.
What's wrong with net neutrality? It's a network, it's completely neutral to any party. It has absolutely no influence over the data and its intended destination; it's just completely neutral. I really can't think how the word "equality" applies.
Yes, but unfortunately, that delay also needs to be factored in. The mere fact a piece of malicious code hasn't been formally identified doesn't make it any less dangerous.
Open Source should be treated with care, just like any other software you download from the net. Stick to the lighted paths and generally you should be fine. In this case, we have user-generated code which can be iffy, but you can feel fairly safe if it has been downloaded and used a number of times. These things usually come out into the open sooner or later.
orly?
(PDF warning)
No-one who saw it thought it was folly. ;)
... but made with lasers!
How cool is THAT?
Besides, your definition is far too broad and all-encompassing. Just about anyone who participates in any form of politics at any level has more power than what is "rightfully" theirs. If you vote, you're seeking power. If you talk to people about society with the intention to convey your viewpoint, you're seeking power (of influence). If you tell a murderous criminal to "put the gun down", you're seeking power. It's far too broad to actually give meaning to the word evil.
If we have many parties to choose from, we get an altogether different breed of representation. The chances are, you'll find someone who is not evil, and who is committed to doing some good for the electorate. The problem is that evil (at the very least, on this scope) is relative, and what you consider good, someone else will consider evil. You could vote for your favourite, and he may even win, but you leave vast tracts of the population feeling very disgruntled and under-represented. Still, a certain group is happy, and change comes naturally.
With two party politics, both parties constantly play off each other, but only over relatively cosmetic issues. The core issues are mostly the same, and are designed to make everyone only slightly disgruntled. So, next to no-one is really pleased with the resulting government, but no-one is devastatingly unhappy either (hence, the lesser of two evils). The other problem is that change is very slow, because it requires a lot of public focus.
They're different systems, both with their advantages and disadvantages.
Wrong: just about everyone on slashdot who gets moderated past +3 talks like this. And it is not the way the world works. It's close, but there exist subtle and important distinctions between your parallel universe and the one you're living in.
The biggest distinction is that we reward riches, because riches are a reward in themselves. It sounds twisted, but it's true. Riches are an indicator of what you've put into society, and they are treated as such. If you have worked hard (or someone has worked hard to help you, in the case of inheritance), then it usually means you've contributed a lot to some part of society. Add to that, rich people pay a lot of taxes (unless the taxation system is ruthlessly regressive), which inevitably means the richest pay for our government, which means that the rich pay for public infrastructure, floating the economy, resulting in quality of life bonuses for everyone, etc, so naturally being rich is rewarded, and having a business that continues to build riches, doubly so.
The recent (and proposed) additions to copyright law, for example, were not so much to do with the RIAA having money and making the rules, but the RIAA convincing the government that these rules would be beneficial to business, and they certainly would be to the copyright business.
That's right: situations of that nature do arise, but the music industry isn't there yet. It still have many, many millions of happy customers, and a significant of unhappy consumers, so called because they "consume" the product, without actually being a customer (i.e. pirates).
Their usefulness is still in producing the music that you borrow from the library in CD form, even if you don't pay for it. Without them, there is absolutely no guarantee that you or anyone else would have access to that same music. Without strong profit incentives, there's no guarantee that the artist would be creating, let alone that specific work, or that the artist would put enough effort in so that the recording becomes the one you enjoy, or that they'd distribute their materials, etc, etc. Profit motive helps all of that. Copyright is actually bigger than just the RIAA. It helps music (and, more generally, art) as a whole. Piracy subverts all of that.
You say the RIAA is dead, but that's not necessarily true. It is indeed leaking profits, but that is generally attributed to the lack of immediacy of music. It's simply quicker and easier to find your music online, legal or not. The RIAA is slowly wising up to this fact, and even though they can't really match pirated/free music for immediacy (they are still a business after all), they can still salvage some profits from their losses. Either way, they lose their current standing, but they certainly don't die. That won't happen until not even a niche market can't support their music. I'm willing to bet that that won't happen for a good 10 years at least.
Possibly, but what better way to control a company than to buy yourself votes at a shareholder's meeting?
You actually think we'd be better off without lawyers? If we don't have lawyers, then we have people acting like lawyers who do a worse job. You think our legal system is fucked? Wait until the laws is argued by incompetents. Corporations lose their legal power, but so does everyone. Eventually it'll be the people who have the best rhetorical skills who get justice, or at least something resembling it. Everyone else would have to eat shit.
As big as the check you asked all the users of CDDB to send you for your contribution.
Correction: new music (my bad). The old stuff will be cycled and recycled until everyone gives up and goes home. Ah, but now that you mention it, perhaps it will come to that if people keep on screwing Big Copyright and laughing in their faces. Could you really blame them?
Anyway, it is undeniable that certain forms of art, music especially, is becoming easier to produce, and thanks to the internet, anyone can distribute. However, as easy as it is to create, creativity (and time honing it) is still a commodity that people will pay for. It's not just equipment cost and distribution costs that gives the product value. If it were, then everyone would be creating their own music; they wouldn't need to even bother downloading free content. The fact is that music has value, and while it continues to have value, I see no problem with facilitating a market for it. Thanks to information's undying wish to become worthless, it has taken legislative measures to make sure music (and other art forms) don't become obsolete, and that their inherent value can be properly used to encourage creation, and give artists compensation for their efforts (proportional to demand, of course).(non-millionaire bands as well, don't forget)
Whatever labels signed the signed artists that you are listening to, they bought the copyrights off the artists, who's income relies on the initial evaluation of the copyright's worth. That copyright's worth is based on the demand for the music, and consequently how much control it affords over the work (since the latter partially controls the former). By not paying for certain pieces of music, you are devaluing the copyrights for your own personal gain. It affects the artists you're trying to support, it affects the middlemen, and it affects any artist to come who wishes to be signed. Of course, your small part in this fiasco is probably small, but it adds up when you look at so many people.
I know you probably couldn't care less if another artist isn't signed again, but you can't assume that such works would have existed if everyone had ignored copyrights prior to their creation. For all you know, the profit motive, the possibility of making a career to put food on the table out of music may have played an invaluable part. The only way to safely find out for sure is to legitimately stop sucking on the RIAA's teat. Show them it's not your desire for free (as in beer) stuff driving you, rather a desire for free (as in speech) stuff, and for the freedom to share. If people followed suit, it would indeed prove the labels are obsolete (but I don't think they are).
Well the company that this guy was talking about is clearly idiotic. It is clear that such irresponsible behaviour is offensive to all of us, and they should be cut from any discussions and/or debates on the topic. The paste which holds the fabric of society together is the news, and it shall remain that way until the end of time. This company has abused that fact. They knowingly abused it. This company takes and takes and takes, on and on it goes, and it gives new meaning to the word greed.
Read the bold print. Next time I may not be able to fit the rest in.
Hey, it's you again, spouting similar self-serving nonsense.
What makes you think the music industry is obsolete? Is it because they're not using modern technology to full advantage? Nope, it can't be that. They're using iTunes, which, coincidentally, you happen to mention on your list of "modern" solutions to music distribution. Is it because they're not making any money? Nope, it can't be that either (unless they've declared themselves bankrupt in the last couple of hours). Is it because information wants to be free? Could be. It seems a fairly lofty and impractical view of the situation, certainly no position for calling for scrapping of multi-million dollar industries, especially one that brings so much entertainment to the world.
What's your problem with copyright anyway? What's it doing to you? It need only affect the people who involve themselves with it. You don't have to buy it. You don't have to dictate to the world what they want. They will choose for themselves whether or not they want the RIAA, or any or all of the music styles they produce. If you like your information to be free, then take only information that is free, legitimately. I know it's painful giving up all that RIAA crap that you claim the world doesn't need, but that's the price of free. Good things come at a cost, and if they don't, why are you wasting your time with inferior and illegal products? Stick it to the RIAA, and download legit!
Yeah, at the expense of the people who brought the band to you, who organised the tour, and who got them where they are today. Besides, if all you pay artists to do is to sell t-shirts and play live gigs every once in a blue moon, then that's all they'll do. If you like recording as I and so many others do (Remember them? They're those things that confirmed the band was any good in the first place?), then I suggest you start paying for them. That also goes for anyone who cares about their P2P file-sharing rights, because, mark my words, if it keeps being used for illegitimate purposes, it will be made illegal. This is not just the **AA's power talking, it's the fact that particularly short-sighted people are currently abusing it for personal gain at the expense of the copyright owners.
How do you think it would've gone if those guys were nobodies with no significant dough? It sends a wonderful message that if you're not a mainstream artist with a cult following, don't even bother.
Yes, generally you own the copy as I said. DRM poses an interesting possible exception though. It comes with your copy, is not legally allowed to be removed, thus any restriction placed on it must be adhered to. The question is not "what rights do I have, considering I own it?", but "do I own it, considering the rights I have?"
Actually, the best question is "WTF is with the DMCA?"