Funny, I came to the same conclusion, just from a completely direction.
Votes are not particularly valuable because any candidates with any chance are all very similar, like you implied, but I didn't put that down to lack of integrity. Both Republican and Democrat and parties are filled with skilled politicians. They've done the research. They know what people want*, they know what will get them elected, and they base most of their issues around that. They're similar in all but some spotlighted issues where opinion is divided. Because they're so similar, your vote is not worth much. It's a two party system, both of whom have very similar policies, both of whom will run the country relatively competently.
Of course, if everyone sold their vote, then there would be big trouble, but that kind of reasoning never stopped non-compulsory voting.
* Yes, supporting big business counts. People like a strong economy, and big business is one of the US's economic strengths.
As far as historical examples go, in the vast majority of cases things get written and published without the need for copyright.
Copyright was created to offset the falling prices in copying technology, technology we simply didn't have in previous years. The past and present are not really comparable.
Actually, I'm not aware of a single example off the top of my head where a work would definitely have only been created if the author receives the legal assurance of copyright.
It's very difficult to prove individual cases, naturally. What copyright does is encourage more works to be created. More works are created under copyright, but I just can't say which ones. If you wanted me to take a guess, I'd say most big-budget movies and pretty much any commercial proprietary software. They're large-scale projects that require much manpower, all of whom would have to be paid reasonably for their services.
As for Harry Potter, without copyright, Rowling may not have felt the financial incentive to produce seven books over the same period of time. Perhaps other works that inspired here would not have been created. Perhaps she would have written a couple of books, but not risk the money distributing them. Perhaps she would have done the whole thing exactly the same, with her writing full time to produce those books while people were still interested in them. She would be eating into her savings for years, but I guess we can't rule it out. Besides, I don't really have to prove Harry Potter wouldn't have been created. The point is that you assumed it would, you haven't provided any evidence why it would, and you've simply ignored the benefits of copyright.
1) There is a difference between copyright in theory and its implementation. It's not a problem with copyright if suits like these are possible. Copyright reform through the specific defining of "fair use" would correct that.
2) You've fallen into a common trap: assuming that the work being allegedly infringed would have been created without copyright. It's supposed to encourage the creation of works, which has already done. Copyright has paid it's dues, giving you the Harry Potter books, so now it's expecting you to fulfil your end of the bargain (i.e. to not infringe upon it). Of course, because it's benefits have been given and taken for granted, it's seen as the bad guy.
You will accept that your government puts you in jail simply because you do not want them to see your files.
Sure, if they have a warrant. A big part of the government's job is to maintain law and order, and it needs some teeth to do so. I don't see why warrants shouldn't be issued for encryption keys.
Why do you deserve even to live and to be handled like sheep?
Why do these comments usually end in some "sheep" comment? It's not like the term makes any sense anyway. Everyone has things they care about and things they don't. Some people don't care if the government can demand encryption keys, but it doesn't make them sheep. I guess they have a choice: they can make their own decision on the encryption key issue and be considered a sheep, or they can conform to your expectations of what you think they should want, and be considered individuals.
No, I think it's more to do with the fact that if you link to an article in your post, no matter what you say, no matter what the article says, as long as the article looks cromulent, you will be modded informative.
Re:If there was only content worth watching
on
Miro Turns 1.0
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps your paraphrase would make more sense if the Slashdot community were developing Miro, then I guess "we" would be at 1.0 and the OP would be saying "you" suck (which would be a flamebait). But we're not its developers, we're just slashdotters commenting on our opinions. It's not really justification enough to say "well, they don't like something that I really, really like". It's not a personal insult to you if other people don't like it. All opinionated moderation does is suppress opposing viewpoints, which isn't really helpful in a discussion, is it?
This is one thing that I have never understood about countries which try to limit speech and especially criticism of the government. What is gained by shutting down dissent with the power of force? Do they actually believe that the rest of the world doesn't know what is going on anyway?
I don't think that's their goal. It's mostly to restrict the flow of information inside the country, so people can't orchestrate a violent uprising.
Heck, even the dimmest rural Chinese citizen knows well the failings of the system (probably from bitter personal experience).
Yeah, but even if they are aware of what we would consider failings, there's no guarantee that the person would, a) recognise it as a failing, b) know that anywhere else would be any different, c) know if anyone else feels the same, d) feel secure enough to act, especially with all the dissidents being jailed, and d) even care, if they haven't felt the need to speak out.
Is their system or argument so weak that it cannot stand up in an honest debate? These countries should stop quashing dissent with the gun and instead fight the battle of ideas in an open and public debate. What are they so afraid of? If they believe so strongly that their system is the best then why not put their money where their mouth is so to speak?
You're thinking far too democratically. A debate means you're giving people a say, which is not the idea at all. The Chinese government doesn't feel obliged to justify their reasoning with the common man. After all, the common man may just end up disagreeing, which would create a sizable problem for the government, and create a large inefficiency in their operations. After all, it's always harder, more time consuming, and more costly to get anything done with people protesting your actions.
Re:If there was only content worth watching
on
Miro Turns 1.0
·
· Score: 1
That's funny. "Democracy" player has nothing on = "0, Flamebait", commercial, supposedly undemocratic TV has nothing on = "+5, Insightful". I would have thought that if the grandparent was a flamebait, the parent would have been just as much a flamebait, if not moreso.
In a sudden outbreak of reason and common sense, a government has decided that its own people are not "the enemy".
What a heart-warming story. Pirates everywhere gets a second chance without paying for any damages they do to other citizens/companies. It makes me wonder why no-one else has decided to do this! We could even extend it to convicted criminals. I'm sure that'll solve all our crime problems. I'm sure it'll solve our piracy problems eventually too! If we have more victories for "the people" like this, piracy will surely end! After all, when the RIAA/MPAA shut their studio doors for the last time, when piracy becomes truly an acceptable part of modern day culture, and when musicians have little to convince them that distributing music is worth the time, risk, or money, there will be so little copyrighted material circling the net that copyright infringement will be a thing of the past! The only fresh stuff circling will be the stuff released by rich, unemployed people who don't care if their stuff is copied throughout the net.
You just tried to compare 9/11 to NBC launching a free T.V. download service online.
Yeah. Sure I did.
You might get modded +5 intellegent here
Yeah. Sure I do. (My recent post was about the 5th out of almost 1500, and about 2nd or 3rd that hasn't been modded back to score:3, or score:2)
Slashdot has an agenda which is obviously clear to anyone who doesn't wear an eye patch complain about DRM, obsessed with MS failure articles, whining about U.S. turning into police state and exaggerating claims of Linux adoption(Year of the Linux?)
Yeah. Sure that has anything to do with my post.
I would also say that the reason majority of the people are not interested in 90% because only a fool with a blind eye and with an open source agenda would swallow that information as facts.
Yeah. Sure I don't know that. Sure I'm not the one telling others this at their every infraction. Sure my karma hasn't be slow to accumulate because of anything like that.
Anyway, you're a troll, you're completely offtopic, you're hopelessly wrong, and you're a hypocrite, since you've done nothing but tout your own agenda, one that I happen to share in spades to boot.
Yes, but in making the US enforcer of the internet and protector of freedom, you are denying countries their freedom to have their own moralities. I like the way it is now: no country regulates the internet alone, with official jurisdiction being geographically divided.
And I bet closer to 95% of computer users who use Windows don't give a fuck about this news.
Just because everyone on the earth doesn't care about it, doesn't mean it's not news. It's not like everyone on Earth was terribly interested in the 9/11 disaster, but no-one would dispute that it was news at the time. In fact, much of the stuff on Slashdot, 90% or more of people wouldn't be interested in. That doesn't stop it from being news either. Just because the Original Poster and the Grand Parent (me) are fucking idiots, doesn't give you an excuse to be a fucking idiot as well. In fact, your reasoning, and the reasoning that I can only assume the Original Poster used are remarkably similar.
You can construct your own personal DRM-free future! All you have to do is ignore it! Don't buy/watch/download/give/take DRMed media! You'll have a reasonably faithful simulation of your DRM-free future without the hassle or rudeness of forcing it upon on everyone else!
Until there is support for Firefox, Mac, Linux etc...
Yeah, and I think that it's not worth reporting until they add subtitle capability for all those deaf people out there. Or censored versions for all those moral luddites out there. Or offline versions for people without internet access. It seems about as reasonable.
Or maybe 95%+ computer users who use Windows would be interested in this kind of news. Can't we just be happy that most of the population has access to free TV shows? Can't we just encourage and nurture this kind of behaviour from media companies without becoming green with envy? Can we constructively criticise, rather than resorting to "I don't even want to know" when they don't factor in your particular minority?
Finally, someone understands that the times when we've got time to watch old TV episodes, we're not likely to have internet access! I've often found myself traveling (train/plane) and it's been a perfect time to watch, but have been thwarted because of streaming-only services.
If you want to watch while disconnected, perhaps you should consider buying the show on DVD?
Perhaps also, these benefits should be pegged under the benefits of DRM? I mean, it's not like NBC would release their programs for free and DRM-free.
Corporations can't hold copyright, only the individuals that actually created the work. Work-for-hire would not transfer ownership to the hiring entity.
No, that sucks. Why can't corporations (or anyone else, for that matter) hold copyrights created by someone else? It's not like there's anything wrong with a corporation having a copyright. It's another money-making asset, not much different from any other. Why block it?
Oh right, it's all about vengeance. You, like many, believe the big labels shouldn't exist, but are having trouble finding good solid reasons why. They lobby politicians and thus get the laws changed to suit their own needs, but that isn't illegal. They sue poor people for large amounts of money, but it's all done by the books. They have different opinions on what should constitute fair use to you, but having a dissenting opinion is far from illegal. Having this law in the books would clearly put the RIAA/MPAA members on the wrong side of the law. Fortunately, the law isn't defined by vengeance. Our legal system would be very, very poor indeed if laws were passed every time someone really, really, wants to find someone they don't like doing something wrong.
And what's worse is that through your proposed legal hack to bring down publishers/labels, you would be destroying an industry which contributes fairly substantially to the rest of society. They provide jobs, and help economic prosperity. They provide entertainment and art, and are the only feasible way for many potential artists to break into the business. Instead of advocating laws that specifically target people you don't like, perhaps you should advocate laws that specifically address the problems with the labels/publishers' behaviour? Perhaps advocating lobbying reform, or courts reform, or even free speech reform (if you're pissed about their differing opinions on copyright) would be a more accurate legal target for fixing your problems.
Or maybe, you really do hate the fact that a corporation can hold a copyright, and it's not mainly to do with their lobbying, or their suing. If so, my apologies.
We live not in a democratic republic, but a plutocracy. Money talks and your bullshit vote walks.
I dunno. I could've sworn my vote was still here. Perhaps if you wanted to make better use of your vote, it might've stuck around. Instead, you took the two parties on the platter, while sitting lazily in your armchair, looked at your vote, and said "what good are you?" No wonder it walked.
I don't think anyone would rationally place the blame on YouTube. The blame would more fall to the school, his peers, and his parents for nurturing/failing to deter violent behaviour. The rational for blaming third parties is usually along the lines of "they provided the tools, so therefore they are responsible". YouTube was just an outlet for him to make public his plans and intentions, which would be a good thing in most people's books. They provided no tools that helped him in any tangible, specific way.
Before you start making fun of the "think of the children" crowd, you may want to first get to know thy enemy. They are not just the opposite of whatever you believe in.
I don't get why people are bothering to change it to "Digital Restrictions Management". I always thought that "Digital Rights Management" sounded appropriately sinister. I mean, who really wants their rights "managed" by a company that doesn't trust you?
MLB should release unlocking software for the old DRM scheme, even if all the software does is apply the new scheme instead. DRM doesn't have to mean that the files you purchase suddenly become useless, if the company actually takes responsibility for it and fixes it. It's ethically their responsibility to rectify any damage their actions do to other people's property. But there's probably some clause saying that the people don't actually own the video, and are thus under no obligation to ensure the playability of the file. What's worse is that people aren't technically allowed to do it themselves, thanks to the DMCA. I think, however, that MLB is going to learn the meaning of the old saying: "those who aren't permitted to do, sue".
It's not much different than some other guy setting up his own small business venture, you know?
That's true. Starting a business is exactly what it is. Like starting a business, joining a larger company is often a great way to secure your success. The thing that defines this is the incredible amount of risk associated with it. In any other business, it is completely possible to make your product/service superior to anything similar from any other outlet. That's not true with music. You will have to constantly compete with people sharing your music for free. It's exactly the same product, just for free. Obviously copyright law isn't enough to deter people from doing it and since you won't personally have the resources to defend your copyright, you will just have to take piracy in your stride, but it still eats significantly into your prospects for profit. If you're a hobbyist, sure. You can be content with making the music and sticking it on some website. If you're serious about profiting from music, the risk too high for most.
I do have one bit to pick in your post, though... the RIAA won't guarantee you against failure. If your band (or enterprise, rather) goes 'splat', they'll certainly want to recover their money from you. If you fail, you're on your own when it comes to paying back all those fees (and the advance).
Hmm. I was under the impression that the RIAA members would try to recover costs through producing other albums (perhaps with you taking a lesser role in the creative side of things). That's the point: they foot the bill if they happen to be wrong in assessing your talent. Otherwise, no-one would go to them, because they might as well take out a business loan.
As for creativity perspective, sure - if you're wanting nothing more than to appeal to the mainstream. OTOH, aren't most bands and singers out to do something unique and memorable?
Wrong and wrong. Bands/singers are out to do a variety of things. Some are out there just so they can say they created something unique and memorable. Some are out there trying to make something memorable (mainstream pop, I'm looking at you), some are out there trying to create something enjoyable, others are trying to create something profitable. The RIAA does NOT just produce "mainstream" music (in the musical sense, not in the popularity sense). They have a variety of genres and artists they produce. Of course, they will push hardest the most fashionable music, which will always have musical elements in common. Those elements are what define it as fashionable. However, that doesn't mean that the RIAA produces ONLY mainstream music. There are plenty of people out there (like you and me) to justify investing in other musical styles. They may not be marketed so aggressively, and they may not be so prolific, but they are there. That's one advantage of the RIAA over the at home, over the internet business model: the spectrum of produced music is skewed only by popularity (and therefore tastes), rather than the technical/financial limitations of the set-up, or the specific tastes of the internet-savvy demographic.
The problem with DIY production, equipment, and marketing is that it often excludes certain types of music or certain markets. For example, your Mac setup excludes those who don't have that kind of capital. You need to buy the Mac and software. You need a spare room, which is a luxury that most people can't afford. You need to buy sound-proofing materials. Above all, you need to be able to afford to either spend your time making the music without being paid (i.e. you have a lot of free hobby time), or you need to be able to risk the kind of capital it takes to set up the studio, and not fall into financial hardship if you fail, which you may well do if you have little business experience, or marketing experience. All these things a label can provide, giving you money in advance to make the album, and giving you a safety parachute if it fails. They can also provide creative perspective, a much maligned benefit, but useful in taking out some of the talent imbalance that can often happen with single person efforts. They can hook you up to other talented people to help expand your musicianship and to provide inspiration and collaboration. They can (mostly successfully) market your music around the country, or even the world if you're lucky, not just at the local music station, or at the local high school. They help people who don't have any recognition or money to spend on resources to make a living off their music, and they do it reasonably well.
I was speaking to a friend the other day who recently visited Japan. According to him, theft is almost non-existent where he went. It's because of the lack of an underclass. Another meagre possession is simply not worth the shame of taking stuff off the street. I guess it depends on where you go in the world as to whether these free services will work.
Perhaps the answer is to actually work hard to eliminate the underclass, rather than just pay lip-service while bolstering the rich.
I was going to write out a well-thought response, but it's obvious that you're an idiot so I'm just going to dismiss you.
That should be modded funny. This is exactly the attitude that's so problematic. I say something taboo, and you guys either bite my head off, or just ignore me. It may well technically be free speech, since there's no censorship involved, but it certainly undermines the largest benefit of free speech, being the free exchange of ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I came to the same conclusion, just from a completely direction.
Votes are not particularly valuable because any candidates with any chance are all very similar, like you implied, but I didn't put that down to lack of integrity. Both Republican and Democrat and parties are filled with skilled politicians. They've done the research. They know what people want*, they know what will get them elected, and they base most of their issues around that. They're similar in all but some spotlighted issues where opinion is divided. Because they're so similar, your vote is not worth much. It's a two party system, both of whom have very similar policies, both of whom will run the country relatively competently.
Of course, if everyone sold their vote, then there would be big trouble, but that kind of reasoning never stopped non-compulsory voting.
* Yes, supporting big business counts. People like a strong economy, and big business is one of the US's economic strengths.
As for Harry Potter, without copyright, Rowling may not have felt the financial incentive to produce seven books over the same period of time. Perhaps other works that inspired here would not have been created. Perhaps she would have written a couple of books, but not risk the money distributing them. Perhaps she would have done the whole thing exactly the same, with her writing full time to produce those books while people were still interested in them. She would be eating into her savings for years, but I guess we can't rule it out. Besides, I don't really have to prove Harry Potter wouldn't have been created. The point is that you assumed it would, you haven't provided any evidence why it would, and you've simply ignored the benefits of copyright.
Ok, two things:
1) There is a difference between copyright in theory and its implementation. It's not a problem with copyright if suits like these are possible. Copyright reform through the specific defining of "fair use" would correct that.
2) You've fallen into a common trap: assuming that the work being allegedly infringed would have been created without copyright. It's supposed to encourage the creation of works, which has already done. Copyright has paid it's dues, giving you the Harry Potter books, so now it's expecting you to fulfil your end of the bargain (i.e. to not infringe upon it). Of course, because it's benefits have been given and taken for granted, it's seen as the bad guy.
No, I think it's more to do with the fact that if you link to an article in your post, no matter what you say, no matter what the article says, as long as the article looks cromulent, you will be modded informative.
Perhaps your paraphrase would make more sense if the Slashdot community were developing Miro, then I guess "we" would be at 1.0 and the OP would be saying "you" suck (which would be a flamebait). But we're not its developers, we're just slashdotters commenting on our opinions. It's not really justification enough to say "well, they don't like something that I really, really like". It's not a personal insult to you if other people don't like it. All opinionated moderation does is suppress opposing viewpoints, which isn't really helpful in a discussion, is it?
That's funny. "Democracy" player has nothing on = "0, Flamebait", commercial, supposedly undemocratic TV has nothing on = "+5, Insightful". I would have thought that if the grandparent was a flamebait, the parent would have been just as much a flamebait, if not moreso.
Anyway, you're a troll, you're completely offtopic, you're hopelessly wrong, and you're a hypocrite, since you've done nothing but tout your own agenda, one that I happen to share in spades to boot.
Yes, but in making the US enforcer of the internet and protector of freedom, you are denying countries their freedom to have their own moralities. I like the way it is now: no country regulates the internet alone, with official jurisdiction being geographically divided.
You can construct your own personal DRM-free future! All you have to do is ignore it! Don't buy/watch/download/give/take DRMed media! You'll have a reasonably faithful simulation of your DRM-free future without the hassle or rudeness of forcing it upon on everyone else!
Or maybe 95%+ computer users who use Windows would be interested in this kind of news. Can't we just be happy that most of the population has access to free TV shows? Can't we just encourage and nurture this kind of behaviour from media companies without becoming green with envy? Can we constructively criticise, rather than resorting to "I don't even want to know" when they don't factor in your particular minority?
[/rant]
Perhaps also, these benefits should be pegged under the benefits of DRM? I mean, it's not like NBC would release their programs for free and DRM-free.
Oh right, it's all about vengeance. You, like many, believe the big labels shouldn't exist, but are having trouble finding good solid reasons why. They lobby politicians and thus get the laws changed to suit their own needs, but that isn't illegal. They sue poor people for large amounts of money, but it's all done by the books. They have different opinions on what should constitute fair use to you, but having a dissenting opinion is far from illegal. Having this law in the books would clearly put the RIAA/MPAA members on the wrong side of the law. Fortunately, the law isn't defined by vengeance. Our legal system would be very, very poor indeed if laws were passed every time someone really, really, wants to find someone they don't like doing something wrong.
And what's worse is that through your proposed legal hack to bring down publishers/labels, you would be destroying an industry which contributes fairly substantially to the rest of society. They provide jobs, and help economic prosperity. They provide entertainment and art, and are the only feasible way for many potential artists to break into the business. Instead of advocating laws that specifically target people you don't like, perhaps you should advocate laws that specifically address the problems with the labels/publishers' behaviour? Perhaps advocating lobbying reform, or courts reform, or even free speech reform (if you're pissed about their differing opinions on copyright) would be a more accurate legal target for fixing your problems.
Or maybe, you really do hate the fact that a corporation can hold a copyright, and it's not mainly to do with their lobbying, or their suing. If so, my apologies.
I don't think anyone would rationally place the blame on YouTube. The blame would more fall to the school, his peers, and his parents for nurturing/failing to deter violent behaviour. The rational for blaming third parties is usually along the lines of "they provided the tools, so therefore they are responsible". YouTube was just an outlet for him to make public his plans and intentions, which would be a good thing in most people's books. They provided no tools that helped him in any tangible, specific way.
Before you start making fun of the "think of the children" crowd, you may want to first get to know thy enemy. They are not just the opposite of whatever you believe in.
I don't get why people are bothering to change it to "Digital Restrictions Management". I always thought that "Digital Rights Management" sounded appropriately sinister. I mean, who really wants their rights "managed" by a company that doesn't trust you?
I couldn't help but notice that number 4 has no quote :)
MLB should release unlocking software for the old DRM scheme, even if all the software does is apply the new scheme instead. DRM doesn't have to mean that the files you purchase suddenly become useless, if the company actually takes responsibility for it and fixes it. It's ethically their responsibility to rectify any damage their actions do to other people's property. But there's probably some clause saying that the people don't actually own the video, and are thus under no obligation to ensure the playability of the file. What's worse is that people aren't technically allowed to do it themselves, thanks to the DMCA. I think, however, that MLB is going to learn the meaning of the old saying: "those who aren't permitted to do, sue".
The problem with DIY production, equipment, and marketing is that it often excludes certain types of music or certain markets. For example, your Mac setup excludes those who don't have that kind of capital. You need to buy the Mac and software. You need a spare room, which is a luxury that most people can't afford. You need to buy sound-proofing materials. Above all, you need to be able to afford to either spend your time making the music without being paid (i.e. you have a lot of free hobby time), or you need to be able to risk the kind of capital it takes to set up the studio, and not fall into financial hardship if you fail, which you may well do if you have little business experience, or marketing experience. All these things a label can provide, giving you money in advance to make the album, and giving you a safety parachute if it fails. They can also provide creative perspective, a much maligned benefit, but useful in taking out some of the talent imbalance that can often happen with single person efforts. They can hook you up to other talented people to help expand your musicianship and to provide inspiration and collaboration. They can (mostly successfully) market your music around the country, or even the world if you're lucky, not just at the local music station, or at the local high school. They help people who don't have any recognition or money to spend on resources to make a living off their music, and they do it reasonably well.
I was speaking to a friend the other day who recently visited Japan. According to him, theft is almost non-existent where he went. It's because of the lack of an underclass. Another meagre possession is simply not worth the shame of taking stuff off the street. I guess it depends on where you go in the world as to whether these free services will work.
Perhaps the answer is to actually work hard to eliminate the underclass, rather than just pay lip-service while bolstering the rich.