Exactly how the MPAA engineers justified themselves to their collective consciences?
Probably not nearly as many who were doing it help the music industry to survive against piracy. Probably again dwarfed by the number of people who didn't care, and just did their job. It's not like they were doing anything that's generally considered immoral.
(how many hobbyists could afford to pay $1750 for it?)
He has a hobbyist version for US$20, with cut down features and an agreement not to use it for commercial purposes. It's still very useful (I use it), it just doesn't work so well with large-scale projects. Yet people still want the most costly versions, so they pirate it and spread it around the web. Just one of these executables ending up in the hands of a less scrupulous company can result in the loss of up to a potential $5000 for him.
People who only want to play emulated ROMs can stick with one of the many free emulators and skip the $1750 debugger.
He also released a free no-debugger version for gamers. This guy's doing everything right: he has a free version, a really cheap hobby developer's version, and two professional versions, mostly with features that would only be useful to large-scale projects. He also points to other emulators, at least one of which have debugging functions (though they're not very good), yet he still gets hate mail, and people still feel the need to pirate his expensive version.
If you look at engineering and other specialties, each software house has a near-monopoly on some parts of the tool chain... in general, there rarely are more than three well-known providers for any one particular link and each link often costs (tens/hundreds of) thousands CDN$. The market for these tools is somewhat small but they are necessary for engineers to carry on with their day-to-day business of building the next CPU, HD-DVD appliance, etc. These cost way too much to be purchased for personal use and the physical processes involved in putting their output to actual use is often equally prohibitive.
It's a problem, I'll give you that. However, the people who made the software put a lot of work into it, and they expect payment if you are going to use their software. If you are low on funds, you could perhaps spend your time rather than your money, developing an alternative with free tools out there like gcc. While piracy seems to solve one problem (the hobbyists get their tools), it creates another equally pressing problem (the hobbyists don't pay for their tools). If no reimbursement is paid, there will be less expensive tools for hobbyists to pirate. There will also be less opportunity for hobbyists to apply their skills professionally. Piracy gives hobbyists a leg up in the short term, and leaves them for dead in the long term, just like it does our entire culture.
On the software side, most platforms now have free development tools... instead of pirating Turbo/Boarland C like ~15 years ago, new would-be developers can now download Visual Studio Express straight off Microsoft's official site. Offering free downloads of VSE to string up new developers is M$' way of binding new talent to Windows and Visual Studio - an indirect acknowledgment that Linux and FOSS free development tools threaten its monopoly.
That's the spirit! In fact, if you find a market sadly lacking in free development tools, you can start your own. Now there's a rewarding hobby!
I personally view pirating business/development tools for private use as free publicity and training
Well that's great for you then. Unfortunately it isn't for me or you to decide what piracy is to a copyright holder. Sometimes the system doesn't work. It usually works best (in terms of percentage of revenue gained/lost) for the big players, like Microsoft, as you said. However, most others don't have the market saturation required to make all this free publicity work. For people to actually buy their stuff, they need to know where it comes from (apart from your convenient P2P client) and how to get it.
A good example of a person who hasn't done well out of piracy is Martin Korth, and his Gameboy Advance emulator and debugger, NO$GBA. It's a fantastic bit of software, written entirely in x86 assembly. It comes in a Windows and DOS version, and the DOS version runs on his 66Mhz processor. He says it's the result of 9 years (full time) of programming and tweaking. The kick in the tail is he charges up to US$1750 for a single commercial license! He harbours a bitter resentment towards people who pirate his software because, despite his exorbitant prices, he doesn't get many sales (he relies on the occasional high-profile one), and he definitely isn't rich. I seriously doubt he made any decent sales as a result of this "free publicity".
My music discovery process: I simply download what I happen to come across when I feel curious. I rarely hunt down any specific genre, song, group or whatever. I do not crave music and I rarely bother hunting down even songs I like in any form... so, queuing up in music stores or browsing through Apple's catalog is not something I could be bothered with. When I download stuff, it is mostly only because I can and felt like it - there is not much of an a-priori intention behind it.
It sounds convenient. The only problem is that it's illegal and immoral (for reasons I've explained). I think last.fm wouldn't be much more of a hassle. Instead of opening your P2P client, how about opening this page? Check out the top videos, tracks, and artists, and perhaps check out some free downloads. And if you get an AudioScrobbler, and create a last.fm account, you can get targeted new music suggestions. You can even listen to 30 second samples (I know, not long, but decent quality) for certain tracks. Sure you don't get the whole song handed to you on a plate, but you at least find new possibilities faster.
I think so too. Sorry about that. But I stick by my faith in the system. It just needs to be properly regulated to keep it free. Of course, there will always be difficulties. However, I think Apple has earned their position. They are selling a quality item. There is no deception or anti-competitive action here (at least, in the hardware department). If they can make $831 on every phone, and still have people clamouring for them, then good for them!
i'm going to try to make this as simple as i can for you - one last effort you might say.
Great. Some discussion we're having. I'm just supposed to sit here and listen to you crap on without so much as thinking for myself. It so happens that I think the people who are truly destroying the world are not so much people in the US, but people all around the world who refuse to listen or be persuaded once they've made up their minds.
i would suggest that what you have in your country is a particularly sorry travesty of democracy, and its getting worse. you choose to see this as a suggestion that we should give up on democracy. but nope, i didn't suggest that. you can only get so far when cover the weaknesses in your own position by misrepresenting the opposing view. this is a good example.
I misrepresented you? Oh I'm sorry. I've had to deal with 5 or so identical opinions that basically resign themselves to the fallacy that democracy (at least in the US) doesn't work. None of it is constructive. So, again I'm sorry for misrepresenting you. Now let's see what we can do with your misrepresentation of me.
I generally don't condone war (WWII being an exception - I see little choice in that circumstance), and I don't condone what the US has done, personally. I never said anything to that effect, I never implied it. All I was doing was showing a little empathy and a little intellectual understanding. You not only misrepresented me, but you continue to, unperturbed by what I'm saying. In fact, for you to have the chance to make the connection that I've been waiting for since your first post, you've had to wait until I changed tack, and even then the connection couldn't be made. I'm forced to conclude that you're full of shit.
so any other thug would do the same if they had the power to?
I was saying (please refrain from straying from what I explicitly said; it's obvious you can't be trusted to comprehend anything else) that it was a mix of having lots of power and wealth, and having a population saturated with zealots who are convinced they know what's right and what's wrong, and who insist that everyone abide by their rules. These zealots are the usually ones to support these sorts of wars because fighting Evil(tm) is always Good(tm). You know the people I mean. Religious nuts, neo-conservatives, and you. You may not condone war, but you certainly are trying to stir up conflict.
this betrays just how bereft your position ultimately is; i have to ask is there any room for morality or respect for international law in your pig-headed little world view?
Yes, of course. Countries have morality. It's just whatever morality the people give it.
and when you say "protect citizens" might you include economic interests? would you care to show me a situation where a country cannot justify declaring war on another using your version of foreign policy!!!!
People can justify whatever they want however they like depending on their morality. It's really not for me personally to decide what everyone else can justify.
a couple of times i've wondered whether you're morally or logically deficient in your thinking but to be honest i think that you're stupid rather than bad.
Perhaps if you weren't so pig-headed as to think that everyone who doesn't share your opinion is stupid, you would gain a little insight into the world.
It's kinda funny that we're arguing like this. You may not be from the same country as me, but we are trying to accomplish the same thing: we trying to get people to take responsibility for their government. You do it by shoving your morality down people's throats and using petty insults, while I do it with rhetoric and encouragement.
still you've given me and a few others a laugh. nice talking to you buddy.
You've shown others? Oh well, any publicity is good publicity. Here's my advice to them: speak your opinions nice and loud! Speak them to others and to strangers. But while you advocate change, don't be over-bearing like this guy here, or else you may well end up accomplishing the opposite.
Apple would have still produced the iPhone without the AT&T contract, but really: do you think people would pay $831 for a phone. Especially since the iPhone is directed towards a younger demographic? I think not.
I agree. That's why I think it's important to have consumer choice, so that people won't have to pay $831 instead of the usual $399 for the same product.
They simply wouldn't be making as much of a profit.
Which would simply mean that they would charge more, or just not even risk putting the product out on the market in the first place.
"Free market" is a nice way of saying "corporate-controlled consumerism".
The companies fight each other for our business. We can generally choose to buy from a variety of sellers, or choose not to buy at all. It's classic servitude. I don't see why it's corporate-controlled at all. Which is a nice way of saying "you've got absolutely no clue about the free market".
It's gotten to the point that not only are big companies now more powerful than the government (not that I want the government to have much power, but that's besides the point) but they're also more powerful than the people, which is a frightening thing.
No-one cares about corporations, so the government feels no need to regulate them. Thus, they can do pretty much whatever they want, so long as they don't piss off too many of their customers. It's pretty much the way it should be.
is glad to see that the wonderful and elegant OS X is being subsidized by idiot yuppie tools who need to drop hundreds of dollars on each year's must-have new toy.
What exactly is your point? If they have the money, they may well decide to buy an iPhone. It doesn't make them idiots. Why not just say "good for them", if you're so happy with you blackberry, instead of whining in a fashion that makes you seem rather jealous.
The greatest piece of legislation that could be passed would be one requiring that software and hardware manufacturer's could not impose restrictions on how it is used.
So, rather than letting consumers choose whether or not they want free, unlocked hardware for higher prices, they get the decision forced upon them?
Of course, given greed, this is nothing more than a pipe dream...
By sheep, of course, you mean the multitudes of people who decided the iPhone is worth the money, and by overpriced Shiny Thing, naturally, you mean a luxury item that no-one decided is worth the money, because it's priced far above what the market will pay for it?
Your politics aren't compatible with the US's. US citizens (collectively) like having vast economic wealth through a stable and secure business market. US citizens like to be able to afford luxury goods. US citizens like to have some feeling of security when they walk down the street without being randomly assaulted by some psychopath. Perhaps the problem isn't that democracy is a sham so much as the people in the democracy don't agree with you. Perhaps, if you don't like the US's politics (and laws), then you should be fucking off, rather than expecting the rest of the country to do so?
So it "seems" to you that people have as much control as they want to have... where do you get this from may i ask?
It's non-compulsory voting. If everyone voted, and actively concentrated on a wide variety of potential political issues, then no business interest would stand a chance. As it stands, people are happy as long as the government is run semi-competently, and yes, the US is being run (at least) semi-competently.
it is of course shit, and you can justify the behaviour of any regime or government with.
I still don't see why it's shit, and I still don't see the the connection between justifying the US government's behaviour and having some faith in the democratic system. I believe I went over this last post. If anything, you, with your empty outrage and your overwhelming cynicism, are being the problem here. I have the balls to actually do something about the things I don't like. You are just content to give up and yell from the sidelines to an unsympathetic internet forum.
you have ignored this point a few times now but once again i'll state quite clearly that the big business interests that control your country are leading you into aggressive wars to protect their interests, killing millions along the way, and perhpas more importantly are also doing a great job of f_cking the environment up.
I'm not ignoring that point. (Did you even read my post?) It is conjecture. You're providing no evidence for it. I presented you with an alternate scenario, where the people control as much as they want, and fringe political groups/corporations can squabble over the rest, and I explained why it happens, and why it can look like the scenario you're presenting. I pointed out that that point of view is often put forward by people who don't understand that their opinion is not shared by the people around them. People actually were in favour of the war. It wasn't some sidelined political issue that no-one cared about. It was a hot-button issue that often was the deciding factor in a person's vote, and still people wanted it.
now while your country is not the only nation that is guilty of this kind of thing, its just that its the worst, and its getting worse all the time.
it also sets a rather bad example to others; if you're as greedy and as thieving as you can possibly be, then you can get away with it, as long as you have the military power to control the places that matter to you by military fiat.
Wake up. All countries are competitive. If a war will help protect their citizens, and they have the economy to pull it off, then they will go to war! It's not just the US, but every damn country out there! Of course, some countries have adopted policies that make the decision to go to war harder to reach, but I would argue that the US can't afford to adopt that kind of policy. The reason being that they have a country full of neo-cons and religious types who see the US as enormous power that must do good in the world against the forces of evil (read: terrorism, Saddam Hussein). Any government that shirks that responsibility would be voted out quick-smart.
this might be a bit sophisticated, but see how you do; collectively, not personally, people in your country who are observant and smart enough to notice this are failing to face up to what is being done in your name and/or refusing to take responsibility.
Now we agree! We should be taking responsibility, rather than just giving up on the system! The first way to do that is to spread hope that the system will work, so that people will stop giving up and actually do something about their problems. I do that by explaining why the system is how it is, and how people can personally help usher in change. I explain that people are responsible for their government (as you seem to be saying). Again, you make me wonder if you actually read my posts.
The US! People don't feels secure with a libertarian government. They want to be safe from terrorists and other assorted low-lifes. They want to be safe from drug dealers targeting their children. They want their children to have absolutely no access to inappropriate materials. These are all decidedly not libertarian policies. Of course, these are only superficial similarities, and the core of every US party is libertarian, but the official "Libertarian party" may be too extreme for the people in the US.
Why after factoring in the settlement, lawyers fees, court fees, missed income, inflation, risk hedging, emotional damage (because they're... y'know... priceless), instrument imprecision and error, the Earth's magnetism, and a little voodoo economics thrown in, the damages can easily soar past the 100,000 euro mark! You're obviously not a very good lawyer, if one at all.
How many times do I have to vote Libertarian before the Libertarians win?
It's not all about your vote, or how many times you vote for them, it's the number of people you convince to vote libertarian.
Other people still vote.
For whomever the TV tells them to.
So maybe your first step is to buy some TV time? Or perhaps no matter how much TV time you buy, people still won't agree with libertarian policy, in which case you should probably move to a place with a government more in line with your political alignment.
Does suggesting that you put a cross on a piece of paper every half decade mean that you have even the slightest understanding of democracy or what representative government might mean?
Of course not. Do you really think that blaming the war on someone who seems to know a little about the mechanics of democracy is reasonable?
Do you really think that you have a handle on the folk that seem to have control of your country at the moment, er I mean for the last fifty or so years, i.e. corporate, oil and other big business interests?
Yes. It seems to me that people have as much control as they want to have. It also seems to me that these "democracy not working" crap is mainly from people who don't want to take responsibility for their government. It is a democracy, your vote is still king, and you can influence other people's votes. If the people are apathetic, then they get what they voted for! If you give up on the government, then your government gives up on you. But it seems most discontent is from people who just assume no-one could possibly hold a different opinion from themselves, and thus democracy doesn't work when politicians make decisions they don't like. In fact, I would go so far as to say that saying the people aren't in power is evidence of a lack of understanding of democracy.
Your willfully ignorant attitude provides consent for the abhorrent and murderous regime that has managed to take hold of the US, and makes you as responsible as anyone else for what they've carried out thus far, never mind what they might have planned for the future.
You still haven't explained why I'm personally responsible for the "murderous regime", just for having faith in, and taking responsibility for, my government. I've given my reasons why you are responsible for doing the opposite, I'll wait for your spectacular rebuttal.
This isn't about flamebait you f_cking retard - you c_nts are doing your best to wreck this planet, one way or another, and its high time you woke up to it!
It's a flamebait. Look it up. You seem to be laboring under the impression that because you personally believe your opinion to be the absolute god-given truth means that you can use all manner of petty insults to convey it while being immune to deserved flamebait mods. Thankfully, the moderation system is a little more objective than that.
Big corporations rule the U.S. these days, and there's no stopping it now. There's no way to, even including violent revolution. We're way past the point of no return. And it's not just the U.S., either, but most of the rest of the world as well.
How about getting on a soap-box and start raising these issues? How about organising a group, dedicated to spreading the message far and wide? I'd probably donate.
How about actually taking some responsibility for how your democratic republic has turned out? It is still democratic. You still vote. Other people still vote. You have a voice that you can use to convince others. The failing is yours that you have allowed your democracy to become so unrepresentative.
Or is it? Perhaps people like the economic benefits of having a business-friendly government. Perhaps if it wasn't, you wouldn't have the internet connection you enjoy, or the income you enjoy, or the local infrastructure, etc, etc. Or are people not allowed to believe that, and any pro-business decisions have to be a result of corruption?
It sounds like you believe you live in what is essentially a meritocratic society?
It sounded to me like he believes he lives in a democratic society. The candidate isn't always the best for the job, but it's always what the people ask for (which may not be much).
You're not hurting anyone personally by being a gullible and non-thinking little c_nt, but the problem is that you provide your leaders with the justification for destructive wars that you country keeps starting.
Funny, I thought that out of the two posts here, his showed a lot more thought and consideration than your dumb flamebait. You also fail to make the connection of how understanding democratic principles makes him responsible for all these wars.
Why are they evil? What is it about their day-to-day thinking and mentality that makes them evil? What evil deeds have they done? If you can answer it, how are these "evil" organisations lingering in a democratic system with decent freedom of (political) speech? How much of them is undeniably evil, and how much is just decisions you don't personally agree with?
Maybe not many for the music industry but I had a broader scope in mind... like computer science and engineering. How many of today's top senior programmers and engineers used pirate copies of expensive software during college/university years? This figure is very likely closer to 100% than 0%.
The tools that these programmers/engineers were created under copyright. Those tools, since they weren't distributed free, probably wouldn't have been created, or at least not created in the same time-frame, or as completely as they were, if it weren't for copyright. It's the cannibalistic nature of art and the nature of piracy. It competes with (and eventually destroys) the very thing it relies upon. Allowing piracy results in a very short term free-for-all, after which point there's no fresh art to build upon.
Between piracy and labels, I think labels cause the most harm and mislead artists into blaming everything on piracy.
Labels are trying desperately to stop piracy from being a normal and accepted practice (which curbs afore-mentioned cannibalism). Plus labels help encourage people from all income brackets have a chance at a music career, provided they can sell you. So the scores are:
Labels:
+ Help more artists into the scene + Fights destructive piracy, not just for them, but for all copyright holders - Some of their lawsuits are poorly researched, resulting in the very real possibility that the plaintiffs are innocent - Fail to tell the complete truth about piracy
Piracy:
+ Helps culture in the short term - Kills culture slowly in the long term - Encourages the growth of itself (people thinking: "If he gets to do it, why can't I?") - Represented by groups such as the Pirate Bay, who vocally fail to tell the complete truth about the labels
Labels win for me hands down.
I never buy music I never heard before. In a 0-music-piracy/free-download world, I could quite possibly end up not buying any music ever again... that would hurt music sales even worse, no?
No. I know several people who pirate all or nearly all their music, some with gigs of it. And they could afford to spend money on music (perhaps not the amount they've procured, but enough). And if people continue to spread the idea that piracy isn't so bad, or a better alternative to the labels, then we are only going to see more of these people.
As for your problem of music discovery, that's no problem for most people. If your tastes are "mainstream" enough, you can rely on the radio, or internet radio. You can use services like last.fm to see what people with similar tastes are listening to. You can walk into an average CD store and listen to a CD off the shelf. iTunes will give you 30 second previews of a huge variety of signed and indie artists, arranged in genres. There are plenty of ways to try before you buy, all of which %100 legal. If you need to rely on piracy you aren't really trying.
However, if you are one of the few altruistic beings on the Earth and you therefore only pirate to try the music (and you delete the music immediately after trying it, and you don't use a P2P client so as not to help propagate the pirated copy, and you aren't advertising the fact so as not to spread the fallacy that it's OK to pirate), then I accept you aren't doing anything wrong.
There is a flip-side to cavernous corporate greed, and that is that it's cavernous. It simply can't be filled. The fact that MS has multiple billions of dollars doesn't mean that they don't want to keep every penny. My point is that no matter how much they have, they still don't want to toy with consumers. They'd rather keep them. In fact, their attitude to pirated Windows copies suggests that they really, really want to keep them, even if it means a slight loss in the short term.
Slashdot Mirror
Smithers, release the houn^H^H^H^H lawyers!
A good example of a person who hasn't done well out of piracy is Martin Korth, and his Gameboy Advance emulator and debugger, NO$GBA. It's a fantastic bit of software, written entirely in x86 assembly. It comes in a Windows and DOS version, and the DOS version runs on his 66Mhz processor. He says it's the result of 9 years (full time) of programming and tweaking. The kick in the tail is he charges up to US$1750 for a single commercial license! He harbours a bitter resentment towards people who pirate his software because, despite his exorbitant prices, he doesn't get many sales (he relies on the occasional high-profile one), and he definitely isn't rich. I seriously doubt he made any decent sales as a result of this "free publicity".It sounds convenient. The only problem is that it's illegal and immoral (for reasons I've explained). I think last.fm wouldn't be much more of a hassle. Instead of opening your P2P client, how about opening this page? Check out the top videos, tracks, and artists, and perhaps check out some free downloads. And if you get an AudioScrobbler, and create a last.fm account, you can get targeted new music suggestions. You can even listen to 30 second samples (I know, not long, but decent quality) for certain tracks. Sure you don't get the whole song handed to you on a plate, but you at least find new possibilities faster.
Nope. I can't really afford a luxury item like that.
I generally don't condone war (WWII being an exception - I see little choice in that circumstance), and I don't condone what the US has done, personally. I never said anything to that effect, I never implied it. All I was doing was showing a little empathy and a little intellectual understanding. You not only misrepresented me, but you continue to, unperturbed by what I'm saying. In fact, for you to have the chance to make the connection that I've been waiting for since your first post, you've had to wait until I changed tack, and even then the connection couldn't be made. I'm forced to conclude that you're full of shit.I was saying (please refrain from straying from what I explicitly said; it's obvious you can't be trusted to comprehend anything else) that it was a mix of having lots of power and wealth, and having a population saturated with zealots who are convinced they know what's right and what's wrong, and who insist that everyone abide by their rules. These zealots are the usually ones to support these sorts of wars because fighting Evil(tm) is always Good(tm). You know the people I mean. Religious nuts, neo-conservatives, and you. You may not condone war, but you certainly are trying to stir up conflict.Yes, of course. Countries have morality. It's just whatever morality the people give it.People can justify whatever they want however they like depending on their morality. It's really not for me personally to decide what everyone else can justify.Perhaps if you weren't so pig-headed as to think that everyone who doesn't share your opinion is stupid, you would gain a little insight into the world.
It's kinda funny that we're arguing like this. You may not be from the same country as me, but we are trying to accomplish the same thing: we trying to get people to take responsibility for their government. You do it by shoving your morality down people's throats and using petty insults, while I do it with rhetoric and encouragement.You've shown others? Oh well, any publicity is good publicity. Here's my advice to them: speak your opinions nice and loud! Speak them to others and to strangers. But while you advocate change, don't be over-bearing like this guy here, or else you may well end up accomplishing the opposite.
By sheep, of course, you mean the multitudes of people who decided the iPhone is worth the money, and by overpriced Shiny Thing, naturally, you mean a luxury item that no-one decided is worth the money, because it's priced far above what the market will pay for it?
Wait a minute. Something doesn't add up here...
It's non-compulsory voting. If everyone voted, and actively concentrated on a wide variety of potential political issues, then no business interest would stand a chance. As it stands, people are happy as long as the government is run semi-competently, and yes, the US is being run (at least) semi-competently.
I still don't see why it's shit, and I still don't see the the connection between justifying the US government's behaviour and having some faith in the democratic system. I believe I went over this last post. If anything, you, with your empty outrage and your overwhelming cynicism, are being the problem here. I have the balls to actually do something about the things I don't like. You are just content to give up and yell from the sidelines to an unsympathetic internet forum.
I'm not ignoring that point. (Did you even read my post?) It is conjecture. You're providing no evidence for it. I presented you with an alternate scenario, where the people control as much as they want, and fringe political groups/corporations can squabble over the rest, and I explained why it happens, and why it can look like the scenario you're presenting. I pointed out that that point of view is often put forward by people who don't understand that their opinion is not shared by the people around them. People actually were in favour of the war. It wasn't some sidelined political issue that no-one cared about. It was a hot-button issue that often was the deciding factor in a person's vote, and still people wanted it.
Wake up. All countries are competitive. If a war will help protect their citizens, and they have the economy to pull it off, then they will go to war! It's not just the US, but every damn country out there! Of course, some countries have adopted policies that make the decision to go to war harder to reach, but I would argue that the US can't afford to adopt that kind of policy. The reason being that they have a country full of neo-cons and religious types who see the US as enormous power that must do good in the world against the forces of evil (read: terrorism, Saddam Hussein). Any government that shirks that responsibility would be voted out quick-smart.
Now we agree! We should be taking responsibility, rather than just giving up on the system! The first way to do that is to spread hope that the system will work, so that people will stop giving up and actually do something about their problems. I do that by explaining why the system is how it is, and how people can personally help usher in change. I explain that people are responsible for their government (as you seem to be saying). Again, you make me wonder if you actually read my posts.
The US! People don't feels secure with a libertarian government. They want to be safe from terrorists and other assorted low-lifes. They want to be safe from drug dealers targeting their children. They want their children to have absolutely no access to inappropriate materials. These are all decidedly not libertarian policies. Of course, these are only superficial similarities, and the core of every US party is libertarian, but the official "Libertarian party" may be too extreme for the people in the US.
Why after factoring in the settlement, lawyers fees, court fees, missed income, inflation, risk hedging, emotional damage (because they're... y'know... priceless), instrument imprecision and error, the Earth's magnetism, and a little voodoo economics thrown in, the damages can easily soar past the 100,000 euro mark! You're obviously not a very good lawyer, if one at all.
How about actually taking some responsibility for how your democratic republic has turned out? It is still democratic. You still vote. Other people still vote. You have a voice that you can use to convince others. The failing is yours that you have allowed your democracy to become so unrepresentative.
Or is it? Perhaps people like the economic benefits of having a business-friendly government. Perhaps if it wasn't, you wouldn't have the internet connection you enjoy, or the income you enjoy, or the local infrastructure, etc, etc. Or are people not allowed to believe that, and any pro-business decisions have to be a result of corruption?
OK, I'll bite.
Why are they evil? What is it about their day-to-day thinking and mentality that makes them evil? What evil deeds have they done? If you can answer it, how are these "evil" organisations lingering in a democratic system with decent freedom of (political) speech? How much of them is undeniably evil, and how much is just decisions you don't personally agree with?
I don't get it. Is "It's the JEWS, stupid..." some kind of obligatory joke? Or is it just plain ol' vanilla racism?
Labels:
+ Help more artists into the scene
+ Fights destructive piracy, not just for them, but for all copyright holders
- Some of their lawsuits are poorly researched, resulting in the very real possibility that the plaintiffs are innocent
- Fail to tell the complete truth about piracy
Piracy:
+ Helps culture in the short term
- Kills culture slowly in the long term
- Encourages the growth of itself (people thinking: "If he gets to do it, why can't I?")
- Represented by groups such as the Pirate Bay, who vocally fail to tell the complete truth about the labels
Labels win for me hands down.No. I know several people who pirate all or nearly all their music, some with gigs of it. And they could afford to spend money on music (perhaps not the amount they've procured, but enough). And if people continue to spread the idea that piracy isn't so bad, or a better alternative to the labels, then we are only going to see more of these people.
As for your problem of music discovery, that's no problem for most people. If your tastes are "mainstream" enough, you can rely on the radio, or internet radio. You can use services like last.fm to see what people with similar tastes are listening to. You can walk into an average CD store and listen to a CD off the shelf. iTunes will give you 30 second previews of a huge variety of signed and indie artists, arranged in genres. There are plenty of ways to try before you buy, all of which %100 legal. If you need to rely on piracy you aren't really trying.
However, if you are one of the few altruistic beings on the Earth and you therefore only pirate to try the music (and you delete the music immediately after trying it, and you don't use a P2P client so as not to help propagate the pirated copy, and you aren't advertising the fact so as not to spread the fallacy that it's OK to pirate), then I accept you aren't doing anything wrong.
There is a flip-side to cavernous corporate greed, and that is that it's cavernous. It simply can't be filled. The fact that MS has multiple billions of dollars doesn't mean that they don't want to keep every penny. My point is that no matter how much they have, they still don't want to toy with consumers. They'd rather keep them. In fact, their attitude to pirated Windows copies suggests that they really, really want to keep them, even if it means a slight loss in the short term.