So therefore anyone can say anything, they'll just be ostracised if they do. We could also take that one step further and write that ostracisation into the law. i.e. you can say what you want, but you might have to deal with some petty criminal charges.
Why exactly do you use the term "assholes" in this context? Because they dared question something?
I thought the same thing! It seems to me that there are two possible scenarios. One, the GP thinks that you're an asshole if you dissent, but society is evil if no-one does, or two, the GP only likes certain subjects to be dissented.
Actually, I think the GP's whole argument is bogus. As I was saying further up the thread*, total control over people is ludicrously expensive. It's far easier and cheaper to keep citizens satisfied by doing a decent job at running the country. Modern US citizens have pretty much everything they want, and the prospects of new governments don't really excite them. In short, the most efficient and effective way to quash dissent is to stop it at its source.
* it won't be modded up, knowing the moderators who prowl these YRO articles
WTF? Are you suggesting that the US Government has total control over all communications? If so, you are suggesting that the US Government is personally listening to (i.e. not just recording) every phone call. You are suggesting that they open every letter, that they read every near-unreadable forum post. Hell, your blanket statement even suggests that they are listening and potentially censoring (hey, it wouldn't be control without censorship, right?) every word that comes out of a US citizen's mouth, speech being another form of communication.
Control is expensive. Even if the US government could control communications, the cost benefits ratio is too disproportionate. Why bother at all with controlling communications, when they can just do their job? Seriously, it isn't that hard. Just find out what the people want, and promise to do it. Of course, it is a little more complicated, but sure as hell simpler and cheaper than going for total control of communications. Why do you think that so many US citizens are considered apathetic? Because they're satisfied with their governments. Nothing has happened that has been enough to stir them into looking for alternative governments. They have what they need, they have what they want, and the strong US economy is keeping them relatively rich, and that's enough. That's the best way of quashing political dissent.
Same goes for controlling the media. I don't know what the hell corruption has to do with this though. I can't even tell exactly what you mean by corruption, especially since you're saying that this particular brand of corruption is "standard operating practice" for all governments worldwide.
That's it? Cell phones are allowed in theatres only if it could 100% guaranteed that no-one would use them for anything but an emergency? You still are being cold. Just because you don't personally care whether or not you know at the time whether your parents happen to be in hospital, doesn't mean that everyone thinks the same way. It also seems the law is on my side, prioritising people's knowledge of events related to them over peace and quiet in theatres or restaurants, because it's illegal to block mobile phones.
I think you're being a little cold. I see nothing wrong with people wanting to be notified whenever possible of emergencies happening to them or people they care about. Just because people may have missed out on the news a variety of other ways, doesn't mean it's not tragic. While their presence may not affect the emergency victim's condition, it's courteous to let them keep themselves informed. In fact, I would rate that courtesy higher than the courtesy of shutting up while a movie is on. Y'know, the old loved one dying vs. the "I'm trying to watch the movie here!" debate...
based on the fact that she had offered files for upload, despite earlier cases where such an offering was not considered to be fact enough to prove infringement. A fact which was hidden from the trial judge even tho it was known to the RIAA attorneys, who should have disclosed that to the court.
Couldn't her lawyer have just done some research? It's not the lawyer's responsibility to poke potential holes in his own arguments.
They're not representing artists, they're subsidising them. They handle the distribution/marketing, the equipment, and the financial stuff, the artist handles the music, and they negotiate the rest. Trent Reznor can bitch as much as he likes about the prices of CDs, but he knew what he was in for when he signed. He can't expect to let the RIAA invest in his career without them demanding that he charge for his music. Actually, that's misleading. It's the RIAA's music now, since he sold them the copyright for the money he now lives off of.
Because no-one else (apart from the MPAA) seems willing to put their reputation on the line to stop piracy on any significant scale. Not to mention that their music isn't all bad.
Bias much? She allegedly did the offence, she gets a trial. The (alleged) victim here is the RIAA here. And they are undoubtedly victims, due to the all the millions of dollars worth of pirated works that are transferred illegally that they fail to be reimbursed for.
schools can soon get in trouble for not authenticating their wireless, in case terrorists want to use it.
Terrorists? Paedophiles! I don't want a paedophile accessing MY CHILD'S internet! How could schools sink so low as to allow just anybody off the street to access the internet of our children?
How does this cost work out in the long run. The iTunes song is yours for "life". If napster closes, there goes your music collection. ALL your downloaded music, GONE. For good.
At which point he can subscribe to a competitor's service. It's just a service, nothing more. You're not supposed to make it your music collection, in the same way that you'd never make your radio your music collection. If the service dies, it is understood that they're not obligated to take your money and keep performing it. We have market competition to offset that.
Firstly, you're not time-shifting, you are archiving, and although you don't care, that is an abuse of the system (but we all forgive you:) ).
Secondly, you don't need to time-shift, since it is an on-demand service. You're not listening to a broadcast, you are choosing songs to listen to, and you may choose to listen to them at whatever point in the future of your subscription.
The GP is right, this is not a distribution method for goods, it is a service. It's also a cheap service. $9.95 a month is pretty damn good for your pick of "millions of songs". Of course, it would be even better value (in fact, it would be an absolute steal) if it was an "as much as you can download and pack onto a hard drive to keep" service, but it isn't, so don't buy it if you're wanting to use that way.
Absolutely. Part of it was to secure oil, which society runs on. That's of direct benefit to the people as well. Mostly though, it was born out of people's paranoia.
ask yourself, when was the last time the federal government did anything which was in your best interest, and not that of big business or other moneyed powers?
They invaded Iraq, which was to help you feel more secure. They passed a few nanny-state laws, which were to save you from yourselves, and make you feel more confident about your kids' futures. They've taken bad but not seriously inept care of your economy (enough to maintain your standard of living). They've tried to help keep nuclear war at bay. They've failed to turn the US into a totalitarian state. They've maintained the free market in most markets. They've kept inflation and taxation down to reasonable levels.
Is this a useful way of looking at things? The government is not a "them" distinct from "us."
Yes, in this case. By government, I really mean any political party, in power or not. They tend to have a cohesive view on the world, and will organise cohesive responses. While they are part of the people, they also can be categorised by their beliefs. I think it's perfectly fair to label them "them". As for "us" however, I refer to "us" and "the people" as any group of people that also share an agenda. Basically, people who don't trust certain political parties will find they'll get nothing from them. No fallacious divisions intended. People who trust no political party should probably either run for election themselves, leave the country, or accept they are going to be unhappy with politics from now on.
The parent post is correct. You can't expect a government to trust you if you don't trust them. It's the same dynamic in any relationship. It goes something like this:
People: We'll vote for you if you do X Government: OK, we'll do X after next election People: We don't trust you to do X after you're elected Government: We don't trust you to vote for us etc, etc...
The government ends up pandering to the voters who trust them, and who are thus more trustworthy, which exacerbates the problem for people who don't trust the government.
Ah, so it's you Mr President! It must have been hard to learn proper english after all the lamer-speak. It must've been tough, and I'm sure you had some troubles perfecting your speech. Actually, that explains quite a bit...
They are simply going to have to accept that casual copying IS a part of modern culture
Not yet. Most people who pirate feel a degree of guilt when they do it, and people who do it are still viewed as selfish and immoral. Besides, even if it does become an acceptable part of modern culture, there's nothing stopping the MPAA from changing it back.
This "War On Piracy" does nothing more than keep people in jobs, much like the "War On Drugs". Like the drug war, piracy cannot be stopped unless it's made legal, but to do that you would put those in charge of fighting said illegal activity out of a job.
Proof? Evidence? Congratulations logicassassin, you have succeeded in your mission objective.
What's far more likely is that the "War on Piracy" is to stop piracy from becoming an accepted part of modern culture, which would be disastrous for the music industry. It's not like the music industry wants to keep employing all these people, paying them all good money just so they can hunt out and prosecute pirates. They'd rather the piracy stop and the employment stop.
Slashdot Mirror
So therefore anyone can say anything, they'll just be ostracised if they do. We could also take that one step further and write that ostracisation into the law. i.e. you can say what you want, but you might have to deal with some petty criminal charges.
Actually, I think the GP's whole argument is bogus. As I was saying further up the thread*, total control over people is ludicrously expensive. It's far easier and cheaper to keep citizens satisfied by doing a decent job at running the country. Modern US citizens have pretty much everything they want, and the prospects of new governments don't really excite them. In short, the most efficient and effective way to quash dissent is to stop it at its source.
* it won't be modded up, knowing the moderators who prowl these YRO articles
Control is expensive. Even if the US government could control communications, the cost benefits ratio is too disproportionate. Why bother at all with controlling communications, when they can just do their job? Seriously, it isn't that hard. Just find out what the people want, and promise to do it. Of course, it is a little more complicated, but sure as hell simpler and cheaper than going for total control of communications. Why do you think that so many US citizens are considered apathetic? Because they're satisfied with their governments. Nothing has happened that has been enough to stir them into looking for alternative governments. They have what they need, they have what they want, and the strong US economy is keeping them relatively rich, and that's enough. That's the best way of quashing political dissent.
Same goes for controlling the media. I don't know what the hell corruption has to do with this though. I can't even tell exactly what you mean by corruption, especially since you're saying that this particular brand of corruption is "standard operating practice" for all governments worldwide.
That's it? Cell phones are allowed in theatres only if it could 100% guaranteed that no-one would use them for anything but an emergency? You still are being cold. Just because you don't personally care whether or not you know at the time whether your parents happen to be in hospital, doesn't mean that everyone thinks the same way. It also seems the law is on my side, prioritising people's knowledge of events related to them over peace and quiet in theatres or restaurants, because it's illegal to block mobile phones.
I think you're being a little cold. I see nothing wrong with people wanting to be notified whenever possible of emergencies happening to them or people they care about. Just because people may have missed out on the news a variety of other ways, doesn't mean it's not tragic. While their presence may not affect the emergency victim's condition, it's courteous to let them keep themselves informed. In fact, I would rate that courtesy higher than the courtesy of shutting up while a movie is on. Y'know, the old loved one dying vs. the "I'm trying to watch the movie here!" debate...
If so, I think it's time to rent a few Jessica Alba movies.
They're not representing artists, they're subsidising them. They handle the distribution/marketing, the equipment, and the financial stuff, the artist handles the music, and they negotiate the rest. Trent Reznor can bitch as much as he likes about the prices of CDs, but he knew what he was in for when he signed. He can't expect to let the RIAA invest in his career without them demanding that he charge for his music. Actually, that's misleading. It's the RIAA's music now, since he sold them the copyright for the money he now lives off of.
Bias much? She allegedly did the offence, she gets a trial. The (alleged) victim here is the RIAA here. And they are undoubtedly victims, due to the all the millions of dollars worth of pirated works that are transferred illegally that they fail to be reimbursed for.
Firstly, you're not time-shifting, you are archiving, and although you don't care, that is an abuse of the system (but we all forgive you :) ).
Secondly, you don't need to time-shift, since it is an on-demand service. You're not listening to a broadcast, you are choosing songs to listen to, and you may choose to listen to them at whatever point in the future of your subscription.
The GP is right, this is not a distribution method for goods, it is a service. It's also a cheap service. $9.95 a month is pretty damn good for your pick of "millions of songs". Of course, it would be even better value (in fact, it would be an absolute steal) if it was an "as much as you can download and pack onto a hard drive to keep" service, but it isn't, so don't buy it if you're wanting to use that way.
I'd state more, but I think you get the idea.
The parent post is correct. You can't expect a government to trust you if you don't trust them. It's the same dynamic in any relationship. It goes something like this:
People: We'll vote for you if you do X
Government: OK, we'll do X after next election
People: We don't trust you to do X after you're elected
Government: We don't trust you to vote for us
etc, etc...
The government ends up pandering to the voters who trust them, and who are thus more trustworthy, which exacerbates the problem for people who don't trust the government.
Yeah, and laebshade stands of laebshadeGAY!
No really, your joke was witless and lame.
Ah, so it's you Mr President! It must have been hard to learn proper english after all the lamer-speak. It must've been tough, and I'm sure you had some troubles perfecting your speech. Actually, that explains quite a bit...
The time won't be far away when you won't be able to find a non-gamer, leader or not.
What's far more likely is that the "War on Piracy" is to stop piracy from becoming an accepted part of modern culture, which would be disastrous for the music industry. It's not like the music industry wants to keep employing all these people, paying them all good money just so they can hunt out and prosecute pirates. They'd rather the piracy stop and the employment stop.