I'm sick and fucking tired of people defending the damn RIAA while they continue to make off with money they didn't earn. Did they compose the song? Is it part of their soul? A creation of their own? No!
You seriously have no clue, do you? They don't have to create anything. A retail outlet doesn't create anything, yet we have no trouble with them selling their goods. Why? Because they bought those goods. The other party made those goods out of raw materials, or bought materials, and the retail outlet bought the goods off them, and sold them. Now, based on what could be loosely described as your "argument", those retail outlets have no right of ownership to the goods they traded with their manufacturers.
This is exactly equivalent to what the RIAA have done. They've traded money (or in this case the potential for money) for the copyright and they've agreed to do all the hard work and bear all the risks. It's a valuable service, it's only utilised by the artist voluntarily, and it helps everyone have a their own customised piece of their culture.
It cheapens the value of art
If by that you mean makes art cheaper and more physically accessible to the masses, then yes, it does. It's ownership doesn't actually affect the sound of the music, the look of the movie, the words of the book, the look of the painting, etc. That would just be idiotic.
it destroys the beauty of sound
Correction: it is idiotic.
and it fucks us all over in a giant corporatist blood orgy
Only if you consider what artists create to be yours immediately. Otherwise, you're not being screwed over at all, because you never had what you supposedly "lost". Besides, what's the alternative? We fuck all the artists over so we can have one giant, short-lived media orgy?
The entire legal backing behind a record distribution company- the idea of COPYRIGHT, is a law intended to CREATE a market for something unmarketable. Why can the music industry continue to use old, outdated media (CDs, record stores) when there is a BETTER media around? (FLAC, the internet)
Not everyone wants an internet-based platform, especially those who can't or don't like to use computers and/or the internet. But then again, lots of people do, so we have things like iTunes as well. Problem solved. Oh wait, I'm guessing you're not referring to iTunes, or any of those stores where you actually have to pay for music. Just in case you didn't know, the "business model" of giving away whatever the consumer wants for free whenever they want it isn't a superior business model, because superior business models require the receiving of significant money. That's more of a "fuck the supplier" model.
The bottom line is that
a) The artist is entitled initially to the work they create, which includes the sale of any of those entitlements b) Any agreement between an artist and any corporation is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! c) The RIAA is not screwing you if you don't buy from them d) The "outdated" business model is still making money, is evolving, and still hasn't been satisfactorily replaced or superseded e) Calling the business model "outdated" is certainly no reason to breach copyright (and neither is repeating "come on" and "fuck that shit")
Now, the teeny-tiny problem here is that South Park is not technically "their" show in a legal sense. The copyright will be owned by comedy central. They can't legalise any behaviour, they can only apply to their bosses to do it for them (which obviously they did, rather successfully). Still, the real copyright owners are the ones who have to green-light all those activities involving South Park currently and formerly known as piracy for them to become legal.
They are, of course, not going to do that. They want to maintain control over the whole enterprise and reserve the right to pull down the site should TV viewership/DVD sales spike downwards significantly.
Prove it. Give some evidence. Cite some precedence, preferably not one of the majority of cases that are usually cited in these situations, where hyperbolic heresay, circular reasoning, and unmitigated bias/paranoia make up the majority of the argument.
Perhaps the Government doesn't want to alienate business by suing for every mistake, especially when they require so many contracts, and their multinational corporations hold up the economy. It would be mostly consistent with US policy so far, certainly more so than corruption.
But of course! In 2015, everything runs Linux and OEMs ship it pre-installed. We know this because, as everyone knows, 2008 will be the year of Linux on the desktop.
The label's costs probably aren't that bad then. The $3, as far as I can gather, covers packaging/manufacturing and publishing royalties. That comes to a total of $1.62 with the labels.
Why not just make it let all mail through, i.e. turning itself off?
Because people won't notice. Long time, blindly faithful customers will just assume that spam is becoming increasingly wily, or that all spam filters have this problem, etc. When they start flagging ordinary emails as spam, people may actually realise that not only wasn't the filter doing anything at all, but now it's far more hassle than it's worth (i.e. nothing).
So, how exactly did they justify that as a business practice? If they charged the upgrade the same as a new machine, the money that would typically be funnelled into replacing the now redundant hardware could go directly to the company's bottom line. On the other hand, better hardware (typically) = greater cost. Did just about everyone clamour for an upgrade back then, or what?
There's no freakin' way that that major labels are paying $0.80 / CD when they print runs in the tens of thousands. They should be getting WAY better bulk deals.
What out of those did your $0.80 cover, apart from Packaging/manufacturing? Did it include distribution and retail overhead/profit? Publishing royalties?
Piecemeal isn't a great way to approach this. It's terribly inefficient, and we just end up limiting our options and avenues for expansion. What happens when new art forms emerge? What about old ones when technology advances? For instance, what happens to books after e-readers become cheap? Basically, you get publishers fighting tooth and nail to cripple the e-reader industry, just as bad, if not worse, than what we have now with P2P and the **AA.
Plus, it's entirely possible that once we remove the concept of IP out of the system, people will stop attributing any sense of ownership to the artist, and will no longer donate willingly. We would be jumping into a "solution" (it's hardly that, it's more of a denial of problem) that hasn't been tested with or even properly thought through, with possibly disastrous consequences for our culture. In fact testing is rather simple, because any artist can choose to waive his copyright. Test your solution along side copyright, and let us and the market see which produces a richer, more accessible culture.
In a truly open market, the artists would get their fair share.
I disagree. In a truly open market, services to market, distribute, and minimise risks (in exchange for some of their profit) would still be dominant.
He made bit-for-bit copies and he didn't need to decrypt anything to do it.
You're kidding! Are you telling me that BluRay doesn't actually protect against bit-for-bit copying (like CSS)? That's unbelievable. In fact, actually, I don't believe you
How do they get around the ROM-Mark without decryption?
Nice. What a totally rational, unbiased outlook. Anyone who says Vista is competent in any area, or that service pack one makes some improvements, is obviously an M$$$-paid troll. That's even more rational than sorting witches from women by trying to drown them in rivers!
Because you don't get nightmares about any trauma you may or may not have experienced, you're getting self-righteous with me and my experiences? I'm not even asking for pity or special consideration, and you still think that you not having nightmares makes you somehow an authority on the subject, and can tell me what I should be experiencing? You're fucking self-righteous hypocrite, you know that, right?
They aren't insulting the holocaust, they're identifying the initial steps that may lead to another and expressing a desire to avoid that path.
That would be more reasonable. What I responded initially to was "Tag this nazism, because that's exactly what it is." It's clearly not. I've pointed out how the definition of nazism is completely at odds with the intentions and the effects of this proposition, and I've merely explained why I care about these issues. I have absolutely no idea why/. is getting so testy about the term "second-generation holocaust survivor".
Anyway, while I still find the concept of a "second-generation survivor" ridiculous, I shouldn't have mocked you, and do apologize for that. Sorry.
Thanks. I'm impressed you have the balls to apologise (most don't). I'm sorry for being so crude and witless (it was actually a deliberate, believe it or not). You managed to hit simultaneously on two nerves but I don't particularly want to dwell on it. Let me just say that I didn't mean "second-generation survivor" to be a position to pity, just that I could speak with some (small) authority of some of the personal effects it has had on some true survivors.
But don't worry, the way things are going I'm pretty certain there's going to be a major war in Europe in my lifetime; the generation which actually experienced the last one is dying out, so the new one is once again free to engage in nationalistic bullshit and blow themselves to Hell for the sake of glory. Which might be prevented or at least postponed if people realized that this same shit went through before WWII. Pointing out the similarities with recent developments and Nazi Germany might help with that.
Perhaps. Then again, perhaps equating breaches of privacy with Nazism may demean Nazism. Privacy is far from a universally agreed subject. There's significant movements to relinquish privacy, and they're not coming from despotic potential leaders, waiting for their chance to perform a coup on democracy. Equating Nazism this way may garner support for privacy, it also makes the word very cliché, especially for those who don't particularly care about the majority of their privacy. You probably should be invoking Orwell, rather than Hitler, because in Orwell's fictional world, the real horror came mainly from the lack of privacy. The horror of Nazism wasn't so much the breach of privacy, it was the racism, the genocide, and the oppression. The lack of privacy was at the core of the ideology, it's true, but it's not what revolted most people.
Holding the good of the state over everything, especially individuals rights and freedoms, is what Nazism is all about.
If that's all they were about, then all my parents friends and family would probably be alive now, I'd probably be speaking German, and I probably wouldn't be so angry at the Nazis. Hitler drove Nazism to more than just the typical totalitarian regime. Besides, what these police are trying to do is far from totalitarianism (which implies an extreme), let alone Nazism.
Hey, but enough about my parents. How are yours? Tell your mum that Kev said hi. She'll know what I mean.
Seriously speaking, you're an ass. Do you honestly think parents = ancestors, or that gross hyperbole = wit? I'm not asking for fucking handout here, I just want to preserve the horror and the lessons from Nazism and the Holocaust. That's it. I only posted a reply to the AC to explain what I meant by second-generation holocaust survivor (I know and love some holocaust survivors, that's it), not to garner sympathy, and not to give you assholes something to masturbate each other over.
Seriously speaking, do you honestly believe that because your ancestors went through bad shit makes you somehow special enough to be "especially insulted" by references to nazism, especially when said references are quite justified in the current climate of creeping totalitarianism ?
They aren't references to Nazism. They are references to certain minor aspects of Nazism. To say they are references to Nazism implies a certain similarity between Nazism and the ideology behind this proposition, that the proposition and Nazism share some key values, which they mostly don't. It seems that Nazi is just a word that people wave around to make their cause sound scary, and consequently, it starts to lose meaning. Being such an arrogant ass, you'd be far too busy sucking yourself off to care about anything like that.
Of course it could be a result of the commonly observed placebo affect where people who believe they suffer from a psychological condition start to show symptoms of that psychological condition.
Not likely. I've had them even before I knew what Holocaust meant.
My favourite kind of troll doesn't live under a bridge. It's the Slashdot troll. Sometimes you can spot them right away, with their feeble attempts to spread disunity and chaos. Other times, you never know who they are. They could be anyone at any time. You could even be reading one right now...
I've always known and accepted that the UK is significantly less democratic than many of the other big players in western democracy. It's caught between democracy and monarchy, not just in name and formalities, but attitude as well. However, I don't believe that we'll see another Nazi regime stemming from the UK. They've managed long enough without sliding to despotism and the trend is generally tending towards democracy as it is. The size of the government and the control that the people do have are still far too large to be conducive to efficient, oppressive rule. The worst that you can expect from them is Nanny-state-ism.
What exactly is a "second generation Holocaust survivor"?
The children of holocaust survivors. I respect my parents and the hardship they had to endure, and it insults me when people equate that hardship with something as relatively trivial as a privacy breach.
As a side note, I'd like to point out that the holocaust denied me the opportunity to know many of my relatives, plus I have chronic nightmares in which I'm being chased, which is a symptom of the holocuast that apparently commonly affects first, second, and sometimes even third generation holocaust survivors. The trauma runs very deep.
Your reference says (my emphasis) "Among the key elements of Nazism.
There you go. Does this proposition fit those key elements? No. It bears a resemblance to one aspect of Nazi Germany that was far from being the most horrific. Just because a part of society (or in this case, a proposition) isn't the polar opposite of every aspect of Nazi Germany, doesn't make it Nazism. If you call it Nazism, you are implying all those key elements I quoted, and next to none of them come close to fitting.
I'm not saying this proposition is a good idea, that it doesn't have parallels in Nazi Germany, or even that it's not frightening, but calling it Nazism is insulting, especially to a second generation Holocaust survivor such as myself.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly equivalent to what the RIAA have done. They've traded money (or in this case the potential for money) for the copyright and they've agreed to do all the hard work and bear all the risks. It's a valuable service, it's only utilised by the artist voluntarily, and it helps everyone have a their own customised piece of their culture.If by that you mean makes art cheaper and more physically accessible to the masses, then yes, it does. It's ownership doesn't actually affect the sound of the music, the look of the movie, the words of the book, the look of the painting, etc. That would just be idiotic.Correction: it is idiotic.Only if you consider what artists create to be yours immediately. Otherwise, you're not being screwed over at all, because you never had what you supposedly "lost". Besides, what's the alternative? We fuck all the artists over so we can have one giant, short-lived media orgy?Not everyone wants an internet-based platform, especially those who can't or don't like to use computers and/or the internet. But then again, lots of people do, so we have things like iTunes as well. Problem solved. Oh wait, I'm guessing you're not referring to iTunes, or any of those stores where you actually have to pay for music. Just in case you didn't know, the "business model" of giving away whatever the consumer wants for free whenever they want it isn't a superior business model, because superior business models require the receiving of significant money. That's more of a "fuck the supplier" model.
The bottom line is that
a) The artist is entitled initially to the work they create, which includes the sale of any of those entitlements
b) Any agreement between an artist and any corporation is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
c) The RIAA is not screwing you if you don't buy from them
d) The "outdated" business model is still making money, is evolving, and still hasn't been satisfactorily replaced or superseded
e) Calling the business model "outdated" is certainly no reason to breach copyright (and neither is repeating "come on" and "fuck that shit")
Now, the teeny-tiny problem here is that South Park is not technically "their" show in a legal sense. The copyright will be owned by comedy central. They can't legalise any behaviour, they can only apply to their bosses to do it for them (which obviously they did, rather successfully). Still, the real copyright owners are the ones who have to green-light all those activities involving South Park currently and formerly known as piracy for them to become legal.
They are, of course, not going to do that. They want to maintain control over the whole enterprise and reserve the right to pull down the site should TV viewership/DVD sales spike downwards significantly.
Prove it. Give some evidence. Cite some precedence, preferably not one of the majority of cases that are usually cited in these situations, where hyperbolic heresay, circular reasoning, and unmitigated bias/paranoia make up the majority of the argument.
Perhaps the Government doesn't want to alienate business by suing for every mistake, especially when they require so many contracts, and their multinational corporations hold up the economy. It would be mostly consistent with US policy so far, certainly more so than corruption.
3000 years. Gee, that's such a long time. What is it, like 100 days?
Yeah, but if you're looking at the ban administrators, you may be a little disappointed...
But of course! In 2015, everything runs Linux and OEMs ship it pre-installed. We know this because, as everyone knows, 2008 will be the year of Linux on the desktop.
The label's costs probably aren't that bad then. The $3, as far as I can gather, covers packaging/manufacturing and publishing royalties. That comes to a total of $1.62 with the labels.
So, how exactly did they justify that as a business practice? If they charged the upgrade the same as a new machine, the money that would typically be funnelled into replacing the now redundant hardware could go directly to the company's bottom line. On the other hand, better hardware (typically) = greater cost. Did just about everyone clamour for an upgrade back then, or what?
Someone else codes a bot so you can get free shit?
I think you'll be waiting a long time.
Exactly. The labels paid for the music, and they are reselling it to you. The whole "but they didn't make the music" argument is just a strawman.
Plus, it's entirely possible that once we remove the concept of IP out of the system, people will stop attributing any sense of ownership to the artist, and will no longer donate willingly. We would be jumping into a "solution" (it's hardly that, it's more of a denial of problem) that hasn't been tested with or even properly thought through, with possibly disastrous consequences for our culture. In fact testing is rather simple, because any artist can choose to waive his copyright. Test your solution along side copyright, and let us and the market see which produces a richer, more accessible culture.I disagree. In a truly open market, services to market, distribute, and minimise risks (in exchange for some of their profit) would still be dominant.
How do they get around the ROM-Mark without decryption?
Nice. What a totally rational, unbiased outlook. Anyone who says Vista is competent in any area, or that service pack one makes some improvements, is obviously an M$$$-paid troll. That's even more rational than sorting witches from women by trying to drown them in rivers!
Because you don't get nightmares about any trauma you may or may not have experienced, you're getting self-righteous with me and my experiences? I'm not even asking for pity or special consideration, and you still think that you not having nightmares makes you somehow an authority on the subject, and can tell me what I should be experiencing? You're fucking self-righteous hypocrite, you know that, right?That would be more reasonable. What I responded initially to was "Tag this nazism, because that's exactly what it is." It's clearly not. I've pointed out how the definition of nazism is completely at odds with the intentions and the effects of this proposition, and I've merely explained why I care about these issues. I have absolutely no idea why
Unspoken tensions apparently. There's a fear that's passed on through nervous, protective parenting. It's quite remarkable actually.
I'm not actually a psychologist, but this is what I've read.
Seriously speaking, you're an ass. Do you honestly think parents = ancestors, or that gross hyperbole = wit? I'm not asking for fucking handout here, I just want to preserve the horror and the lessons from Nazism and the Holocaust. That's it. I only posted a reply to the AC to explain what I meant by second-generation holocaust survivor (I know and love some holocaust survivors, that's it), not to garner sympathy, and not to give you assholes something to masturbate each other over.They aren't references to Nazism. They are references to certain minor aspects of Nazism. To say they are references to Nazism implies a certain similarity between Nazism and the ideology behind this proposition, that the proposition and Nazism share some key values, which they mostly don't. It seems that Nazi is just a word that people wave around to make their cause sound scary, and consequently, it starts to lose meaning. Being such an arrogant ass, you'd be far too busy sucking yourself off to care about anything like that.
My favourite kind of troll doesn't live under a bridge. It's the Slashdot troll. Sometimes you can spot them right away, with their feeble attempts to spread disunity and chaos. Other times, you never know who they are. They could be anyone at any time. You could even be reading one right now...
BOOOOOOOOOO!
Hehehe...
I've always known and accepted that the UK is significantly less democratic than many of the other big players in western democracy. It's caught between democracy and monarchy, not just in name and formalities, but attitude as well. However, I don't believe that we'll see another Nazi regime stemming from the UK. They've managed long enough without sliding to despotism and the trend is generally tending towards democracy as it is. The size of the government and the control that the people do have are still far too large to be conducive to efficient, oppressive rule. The worst that you can expect from them is Nanny-state-ism.
As a side note, I'd like to point out that the holocaust denied me the opportunity to know many of my relatives, plus I have chronic nightmares in which I'm being chased, which is a symptom of the holocuast that apparently commonly affects first, second, and sometimes even third generation holocaust survivors. The trauma runs very deep.
I'm not saying this proposition is a good idea, that it doesn't have parallels in Nazi Germany, or even that it's not frightening, but calling it Nazism is insulting, especially to a second generation Holocaust survivor such as myself.