How many creative careers do you think start with people experimenting with stuff they could not afford or be otherwise unable to get thanks to piracy?
Probably not many. Certainly not nearly enough to offset everyone who decided that modern musicianship is too risky as a career. It's also not just the people, but the labels too. They're going to be less inclined to risk capital on potential artists, especially the risky ones.
Bad material is more likely to get substantial/critical damage from it.
I agree with you, as long as you define "unpopular" as "bad" (how else could you define "bad" when referring to universal tastes of a subjective art?) The unpopular, more edgy, more risky works are always the first to go, and the stock standard money-makers become the best financed. Now I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want pop to become the music scene. Even if that doesn't sound completely repulsive to you, please think of other people with other tastes and DON'T PIRATE!
In reality, the terrorist threat is a several orders of a magnitude less than being killed by heart-disease. It's my view that in any problem solving situation, you should seek to solve the worst problem first and the smallest problem last.
The problem from where I'm sitting is that billions are being spent on a tiny fraction of deaths that occur in our countries. Where are the billions of dollars of funding to research heart-disease treatment, improving car safety, cancer treatments or the plethora of other much more likely ways you'll meet your sticky end?
With all those other forms of death, there's always some degree of control. You can eat right to avoid heart disease, you can drive conservatively to avoid serious damage from lack of car safety, you can adjust your lifestyle to avoid various carcinogenic factors. With terrorism, the perception is that the threat is always present, and completely out of your control. A stranger on the street gives some indication that he intends to kill you, a terrorist takes special care not to.
Firstly, Vista isn't painful. I've tried it, I use it, it's fine. I even have UAC on, because it isn't as annoying as everyone makes it out to be. Although I must say as a disclaimer that I, like many people, haven't tried to set up a HD home cinema setup, so perhaps I'm not experiencing the worst of it.
Secondly, the thing that's really slowing Vista adoption is not the alleged pain, but the fact that most people don't trust Windows until at least one service pack. This is a critical time for Microsoft. If Microsoft really want to make money (and trust me, they do), they would be focussing on rushing out a service pack, and concentrate on lessening the waves of FUD that are circulating around the web.
In short, I think the GP is right, and the theory of a demonic Microsoft playing with its market like they were pawns in a chess game is absolutely absurd.
Environmentalism scares people. It ushers in big, unwanted changes. It tells people how to run their lives. And when that ideology clashes with libertarianism, like here on slashdot, a lot of mud is slung. The word "corruption" gets tossed around, as if it's not enough to be ideologically opposed to the environmentalists, but they also have to be sell-outs.
In fact, if Greenpeace didn't publicly admit it had gamed the system for publicity, I would bet that there would be some FUD story claiming that they took bribes from [insert portable music device manufacturer here], and how this is just another example of their racketeering.
Greenpeace is full of hypocrites. They run their organization on fossil fuels then protest the fossil fuel industry.
WTF is wrong with being a hypocrite? It doesn't mean they're wrong, it doesn't mean you shouldn't follow their advice. This is a good example of when hypocrisy is not a bad thing. They figure it's much more important to use fossil fuels and divert the money into making sure others minimise their usage as well.
They take money to not protest against companies. They are just a variation on the protection racket
I call bullshit. Greenpeace is run by lefties, many of whom hold a grudge against capitalist society. Say what you want about their goals and their rationality, but they certainly aren't corrupt.
I know that there are different genres, but within each genre, you've got music that almost sounds identical.
Hmm. I haven't explored each genre that the big labels have delved into, into their dark, unknown depths. Suffice to say, the big labels produce a LOT of music, and I doubt from a statistical perspective that all of it sounds the same. The more popular stuff perhaps, but all? It doesn't seem likely. Alternatively, perhaps they realise they can't compete with the indie labels on alternative music? Perhaps, without the indie labels, the market would be free for the big labels to explore?
I just don't think that it significantly promotes the arts to rehash the same music and lyrics over and over.
Perhaps not, but it sure as hell keeps people entertained.
The Pirate Bay, in facilitating illegal behavior (even if they aren't doing anything illegal themselves), are drawing attention to the issue.
As you said, the individual nature of copyright infringement steals the limelight away from the pirate bay. Even when it gets mentioned in the media, it seems to get mentioned as a hovel for pirates, rather than a bastion of free expression. All they seem to be doing, especially with their provocative name, is drawing attention to the need to stamp out piracy, rather than the need to resolve the dispute between consumers and copyright holders.
I mostly agree with you, but there are two things I want to point out:
Music is an interesting example, because it's fabricated and altered so much by the industry already. Lots of music sounds identical, these days. The labels take an artist who has a bit of talent and they transform them into something that's proven (by years of focus groups and seeing what sells) to make money from the masses. If an artist is lucky and gets big enough, they might be able to branch out and get more creative control. Otherwise, you're going to get lots of rehashed stuff from popular labels.
Music from labels don't just sound the same. There are a wide variety of styles and genres. Some are developed more than others, but that's based on popularity more than anything, which is good. I would much prefer music production to be skewed on popularity than anything else. The labels only reflect what people want.
However, if you don't like that, the really great thing about copyright is that it's possible for artists to release their work as if there were no copyright.
The basically unlimited copyright that we have right now is simply not acceptable (and it's really another justification for civil disobedience-style infringement--the cartels lobby for longer and longer copyrights, eventually obtaining virtually unlimited copyrights, and destroying the basis for the entire copyright system--if they're going to treat it like their own personal plaything, maybe there's something to be said for treating their works like our own personal playthings.)
We certainly don't want unlimited copyright, but it's kinda hard to do legitimate civil disobedience because right now, you're very unlikely to get caught and face the consequences. It just becomes the selfish act that I talked about before.
It's not denial. It's a genuine lack of communication between the company and you. If you want to make an impression, start writing letters to the company, and encourage others to do the same. Because the internet is relatively anonymous, it's easier to spam your opinions until they are completely unrepresentative of gamers in general. EA knows this, and consequently won't pay as much attention to forums and emails.
I wanted to add that your views on civil disobedience, particularly the selfish nature of them, are skewed. Most people who cry "civil disobedience!" aren't enacting true civil disobedience. It's not just about breaking the law that you feel is unjust. It's about dealing with the consequences, and using the attention you get from those consequences to fuel your cause and get people on your side.
In that case, I take it all back. Thanks for enlightening me.
There isn't a lot of evidence and reasoning in favour of copyrights now. We live in a very prosperous age where few people have to work 16 hours/day in order to survive. In an age like this, where there is a lot of leisure time, art can flourish without the protection that copyright offers.
That makes a lot of sense, and that's what's been happening for years now. However, I have two problems with it. Number one, people with short hours are part of a demographic, and often demographics are known to have certain tastes. If we limit music creation to just them, that's another skew on the music-creation spectrum. Number two, certain types of music are more demanding than others, so it would favour certain types of music and not others. I don't like the idea that parts of our culture would become economically unviable.
We also have easy access to tools which can be used to make high-quality art and an unlimited distribution mechanism, both of which used to be very hard to do.
Again, another skew. Expect more electronic music, expect less physical CDs, expect people who don't have internet connections to be left in the cold.
BTW, copyrights also serve the important function of allowing an artist to keep his art's integrity. Some people might be turned off distributing their music if they see cheap bastardisations of their original recording, or seeing their work being attributed constantly to other people.
Remember, promotion of the arts is the reason for copyright, not so that one can earn money off of their creativity.
We equate the two because we recognise that the most reliable way to make something flourish is to pour money into it. In this capitalist society, we don't have too much of a choice. We could stop copyrights, but that doesn't exactly help science and the useful arts. I think instead, we need to firstly stop pirating (so society can pay off this ever-growing debt to the big labels), then we need to concentrate on limiting the big labels so their recent spread of power is both stopped and reversed. Keep copyrights and just improve them. Piracy (or the facilitation thereof) is not the solution.
No, I disagree. I believe that civil disobedience is highly immoral most of the time. This is a democracy,
You lost me there. The country I live in isn't a democracy.
you do have a voice, you can change the laws.
Ok, how could I do that?
Fair enough, it may not work for you. Consider yourself excused!:)
However, if you were in a democracy, you take more responsibility with your freedoms. It's not enough to give up on the whole thing and take matters into your own hands. Citizens of democracy aren't just handed two parties to vote between, and that's their choice. They have options, like vocally rallying people against certain problems in society. The pirate bay could do that instead of facilitating piracy on a mass scale, and I, for one, would treat it with a lot more respect. But it doesn't have to be an organisation; anyone can run, or campaign to make certain things election issues. That's the way "having a voice" changes laws: politicians will listen if you're loud enough.
Add in the "stupid American" factor (people vote like they root for sports teams, they're easily misled by spiritual leaders who focus on narrow issues, etc.)
I'm also not a big fan of this "stupid American" factor either. Most Americans have different opinions on what's considered important, and the politicians (being as talented as they are) pick up on that. I'm not optimistic that copyright will ever be an election issue with the masses, but if people group up and try hard enough, they could get a politician to concentrate on the matter for some free votes. Or maybe it would reveal that lots of people support copyrights as they are now, and that would be the end of that.
The big joke in America is the idea that any peon here has a say in the system. The deep pockets of the varies lobbies run the show
So say if there was some big industry lobby who wanted something that everyone else in the country specifically didn't want enough to make a hot-button issue, you're saying that the industry lackeys would still manage to get into power? Amazing.
Basically, I think that most of this lobbyists in power stuff is just what people in democracies with marginalised views tell themselves in explanation why no-one cares about what they care about.
rather than a (sadly) legally untouchable group doing harm to global culture
Like the recording industry?
Exactly like the recording industry, or at least its litigative section. The rest of it does a valuable job, hedging the risk and lowering the barrier of entry into a music career. The PirateBay, however, is just a leech cannibalising the entire organisation, starting with the useful parts and working its way onto the noxious parts.
The Pirate Bay and others like it are fighting a battle where the clashing ideologies are essentially based on who has a right to make how much money. The *AA believe they have the right to profit the most from music and have the system of law to back them up. The opposing group believes that this system of law squelches art and freedom and may well eventually destroy the ability of the artist to have music, movies or other art distributed in a fair manner to the masses.
Agreed so far. There has been certain doubt been shown about certain parties of both sides, and the altruism of their intentions, but I'm happy to take them on face value so far. (Oh good. Someone who's prepared to debate rationally!)
Since there is a body of law in question, the issue is not so simple as just two groups arguing, the one without the legal backing must by definition break the laws in order to do what they feel is ethically right. It is immoral and unethical to follow a bad law, and they believe the laws concerning copyright are bad ones.
No, I disagree. I believe that civil disobedience is highly immoral most of the time. This is a democracy, you do have a voice, you can change the laws. All you need to do is convince people that this is a problem that needs fixing, and no matter how much lobbying goes on, a politician simply isn't going to get work unless they address the issue. Of course, it's hard and takes a long time, but it's no excuse just to ignore the law, and hope that before you get punished, they change it. Civil disobedience only works when democracy isn't present or has failed so much that the will of the people is making no difference. It is important, though, to realise that a people who are apathetic to your cause don't represent oppression against you. It just shows that, well, no-one cares about your specific problem.
I also find civil disobedience highly selfish, because you're refusing to play by society's rules to your benefit and often to the detriment of others. Civil disobedience may seem like a righteous cause, but it's rather infuriating to be on the other side of. For example, I once expressed my opinions on driving on Slashdot, about how I drive on or below the speed limit (on it if people want me to go fast), and how I don't mind which lane I'm in when I do it. IIRC, I received two death threats, and a few people trying to convince me that not only is it immoral, but somehow illegal. My example wasn't civil disobedience so much as civil obedience, and Slashdotters did not like it.
Radiohead and allofmp3.com make convincing arguments that the current system does in fact depress creative and free expression.
Not as far as I can tell. They just seem to be running a music business independent of the RIAA. They don't seem to be making any arguments, let alone convincing ones. The business who's making the arguments is the PirateBay, who constantly claims it's for free expression, which just gets on my nerves. They champion extremist libertarianism, where despite all the evidence and reasoning in favour of copyrights, they maintain will somehow be good for art. They come off sounding as extreme as Sony does when its representatives claim that ripping a CD is stealing. I'm all for them arguing, but they are going ahead and undermining copyrights, and they've managed to do so from a legally defensible position. They know what they're helping to do, they know what most of their users are doing, and that it's illegal in most countries (including their own), but they also know that they're legal. I think it's a tragedy.
[Mods: I've had too many of my posts modded down today by people who don't like discussions to contain opposing viewpoints. Please just leave me alone if you don't agree. Thanks in advance]
IFPI is a non-profit organisation dedicated to the survival and future of freedom of information and the creative expression of people.
And that has what exactly to do with piracy? Last time I checked, piracy did not help the creative expression of people, rather just gave them yet another reason to give up on music and concentrate on keeping a stable job.
Just great. I got modded redundant. Since there are no other posts on this thread expressing this view, I can only assume that that view in particular has now been unofficially declared redundant. Apparently we need to find continually more original ways of breaking the constant, redundant flow of groupthink, because as soon as a certain view (that of course isn't part of the groupthink, which is never, ever redundant) more than a few times, it's redundant. Sometimes moderation seems to be just another way for people to stick their heads in the sand. I just hoped that an intelligent group of people, especially one so committed to the principles of free speech, would be different.
I thought that was coming, but the fact is, they are at a disadvantage. Everyone who has the use of internet the choice not to use it (which I notice that you currently not exercising). The people who don't have internet access are forced to make the sacrifices that we would have to make to forgo internet access. It doesn't make it good, and it doesn't mean everyone else should be able to live the same way. Some people have based their careers and income sources on the internet.
As for your comment about "being free", it's ridiculous. The internet has many benefits, and it doesn't enslave any more than you want it to or let it. All this stuff that sounds good like "people who don't use X modern invention" or "Y social protocol" are more free/better/purer sounds good, but falls apart under any real scrutiny. It comes down to this: use the internet if you can, or don't. You're as free as you want to be.
It's worse than that. Why the hell would they force extra charge for legal downloads? Labels are inflating prices as they are in order to pay for piracy, so what's with the legal mandate?
Or does the tax apply to all legal downloads, big label related or not? In which case, they are targeting the wrong people! Sites with free legal downloads would shut down rather than charging the tax, and those who legally charge for their music are mostly serving people who have found alternatives to piracy, and thus wouldn't be the ones pirating the most. Besides, they are a relatively small group as it is, so there really isn't any money in it.
With that argument, the DEA should routinely raid the Coffee Shops in Amsterdam because, you know, some US tourists actually go there.
Internet's a little fuzzy on those kinds of issues. It also be equated with the DEA routinely raiding Coffee Shops in Amsterdam because they export drugs to the US.
Agreed, but the further from the present you go, the more you have to change in order to make one little change work. There are a lot of things we have now that we didn't have in the stone age or the 50s, but there are good reasons why we acquired and continue keep them. Sure you can say that everyone back then survived without internet, but that doesn't mean we could, because we have evolved as a society to rely on such things. Individuals especially can't be expected to live without certain modern tools, because that puts them at great disadvantages. Sure you could take the internet away from everyone tomorrow, but certain changes would be inevitable. If you changed enough, society would start looking a lot like the 1950s.
It seems you have a pretty stone-aged view of... well... everything. I was going to say socialising, but you don't seems to see much difference between the stone age and now. Certainly not enough to notice that it's stupid to think we can just change parts of modern society for stone-age equivalents.
You don't have to support it. It's coming, or if I'm wrong it's not coming.
I've voted with my wallet. I'm not getting the new album (at least until it come out on CD and CD only format). I don't support their business model, and although it may not make a difference in the end, it's where I stand, and I'll try to convince others of the same thing.
If you really want to hear music processed on producing equipment too expensive for even a small business...
Stop right there! Not everyone has the same resources as a small business! This is what I'm talking about. It seems you have to the resources of a small business, and still somehow have the spare time (which small businesses don't have) to make music. Not only that, you not only have to have the money, but you have to be prepared to lose it, so the resources of a small business have to be chump change to you.
...you might want to side with the RIAA on piracy though, 'cause if they lose no one will put that kind of capital up.
I do. But I forgive you for jumping to conclusions. It's not like anyone else 'round here sympathises.
Basically, the RIAA serves its purpose: to lower the barrier of entry into the music profession. I don't agree with their lack of care in their lawsuit strategy, but I agree that we need to stop piracy now, before it becomes any more of a social norm, and I can't think of a better way to do it than to use lawsuits. At least the RIAA doesn't discriminate music availability by internet access. That said, I'm not tied to the RIAA, so as soon as Radiohead release their album in stores, I'm going to get it.
BTW, why was my post overrated? It was only on score two and it wasn't at all offensive.
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, Vista isn't painful. I've tried it, I use it, it's fine. I even have UAC on, because it isn't as annoying as everyone makes it out to be. Although I must say as a disclaimer that I, like many people, haven't tried to set up a HD home cinema setup, so perhaps I'm not experiencing the worst of it.
Secondly, the thing that's really slowing Vista adoption is not the alleged pain, but the fact that most people don't trust Windows until at least one service pack. This is a critical time for Microsoft. If Microsoft really want to make money (and trust me, they do), they would be focussing on rushing out a service pack, and concentrate on lessening the waves of FUD that are circulating around the web.
In short, I think the GP is right, and the theory of a demonic Microsoft playing with its market like they were pawns in a chess game is absolutely absurd.
P2P is being targeted because democratically allows people to share things they aren't allowed to share.
Environmentalism scares people. It ushers in big, unwanted changes. It tells people how to run their lives. And when that ideology clashes with libertarianism, like here on slashdot, a lot of mud is slung. The word "corruption" gets tossed around, as if it's not enough to be ideologically opposed to the environmentalists, but they also have to be sell-outs.
In fact, if Greenpeace didn't publicly admit it had gamed the system for publicity, I would bet that there would be some FUD story claiming that they took bribes from [insert portable music device manufacturer here], and how this is just another example of their racketeering.
However, if you don't like that, the really great thing about copyright is that it's possible for artists to release their work as if there were no copyright.We certainly don't want unlimited copyright, but it's kinda hard to do legitimate civil disobedience because right now, you're very unlikely to get caught and face the consequences. It just becomes the selfish act that I talked about before.
BTW, copyrights also serve the important function of allowing an artist to keep his art's integrity. Some people might be turned off distributing their music if they see cheap bastardisations of their original recording, or seeing their work being attributed constantly to other people.We equate the two because we recognise that the most reliable way to make something flourish is to pour money into it. In this capitalist society, we don't have too much of a choice. We could stop copyrights, but that doesn't exactly help science and the useful arts. I think instead, we need to firstly stop pirating (so society can pay off this ever-growing debt to the big labels), then we need to concentrate on limiting the big labels so their recent spread of power is both stopped and reversed. Keep copyrights and just improve them. Piracy (or the facilitation thereof) is not the solution.
However, if you were in a democracy, you take more responsibility with your freedoms. It's not enough to give up on the whole thing and take matters into your own hands. Citizens of democracy aren't just handed two parties to vote between, and that's their choice. They have options, like vocally rallying people against certain problems in society. The pirate bay could do that instead of facilitating piracy on a mass scale, and I, for one, would treat it with a lot more respect. But it doesn't have to be an organisation; anyone can run, or campaign to make certain things election issues. That's the way "having a voice" changes laws: politicians will listen if you're loud enough.I'm also not a big fan of this "stupid American" factor either. Most Americans have different opinions on what's considered important, and the politicians (being as talented as they are) pick up on that. I'm not optimistic that copyright will ever be an election issue with the masses, but if people group up and try hard enough, they could get a politician to concentrate on the matter for some free votes. Or maybe it would reveal that lots of people support copyrights as they are now, and that would be the end of that.So say if there was some big industry lobby who wanted something that everyone else in the country specifically didn't want enough to make a hot-button issue, you're saying that the industry lackeys would still manage to get into power? Amazing.
Basically, I think that most of this lobbyists in power stuff is just what people in democracies with marginalised views tell themselves in explanation why no-one cares about what they care about.
I also find civil disobedience highly selfish, because you're refusing to play by society's rules to your benefit and often to the detriment of others. Civil disobedience may seem like a righteous cause, but it's rather infuriating to be on the other side of. For example, I once expressed my opinions on driving on Slashdot, about how I drive on or below the speed limit (on it if people want me to go fast), and how I don't mind which lane I'm in when I do it. IIRC, I received two death threats, and a few people trying to convince me that not only is it immoral, but somehow illegal. My example wasn't civil disobedience so much as civil obedience, and Slashdotters did not like it.Not as far as I can tell. They just seem to be running a music business independent of the RIAA. They don't seem to be making any arguments, let alone convincing ones. The business who's making the arguments is the PirateBay, who constantly claims it's for free expression, which just gets on my nerves. They champion extremist libertarianism, where despite all the evidence and reasoning in favour of copyrights, they maintain will somehow be good for art. They come off sounding as extreme as Sony does when its representatives claim that ripping a CD is stealing. I'm all for them arguing, but they are going ahead and undermining copyrights, and they've managed to do so from a legally defensible position. They know what they're helping to do, they know what most of their users are doing, and that it's illegal in most countries (including their own), but they also know that they're legal. I think it's a tragedy.
[Mods: I've had too many of my posts modded down today by people who don't like discussions to contain opposing viewpoints. Please just leave me alone if you don't agree. Thanks in advance]
If only they were a comedy group, rather than a (sadly) legally untouchable group doing harm to global culture through promotion of extreme ideals.
Just great. I got modded redundant. Since there are no other posts on this thread expressing this view, I can only assume that that view in particular has now been unofficially declared redundant. Apparently we need to find continually more original ways of breaking the constant, redundant flow of groupthink, because as soon as a certain view (that of course isn't part of the groupthink, which is never, ever redundant) more than a few times, it's redundant. Sometimes moderation seems to be just another way for people to stick their heads in the sand. I just hoped that an intelligent group of people, especially one so committed to the principles of free speech, would be different.
I thought that was coming, but the fact is, they are at a disadvantage. Everyone who has the use of internet the choice not to use it (which I notice that you currently not exercising). The people who don't have internet access are forced to make the sacrifices that we would have to make to forgo internet access. It doesn't make it good, and it doesn't mean everyone else should be able to live the same way. Some people have based their careers and income sources on the internet.
As for your comment about "being free", it's ridiculous. The internet has many benefits, and it doesn't enslave any more than you want it to or let it. All this stuff that sounds good like "people who don't use X modern invention" or "Y social protocol" are more free/better/purer sounds good, but falls apart under any real scrutiny. It comes down to this: use the internet if you can, or don't. You're as free as you want to be.
It's worse than that. Why the hell would they force extra charge for legal downloads? Labels are inflating prices as they are in order to pay for piracy, so what's with the legal mandate?
Or does the tax apply to all legal downloads, big label related or not? In which case, they are targeting the wrong people! Sites with free legal downloads would shut down rather than charging the tax, and those who legally charge for their music are mostly serving people who have found alternatives to piracy, and thus wouldn't be the ones pirating the most. Besides, they are a relatively small group as it is, so there really isn't any money in it.
Because people are managing to smoke their cigarettes without paying them.
I know, pretty weak, but I wasn't given anything witty to work with.
It seems you have a pretty stone-aged view of... well... everything. I was going to say socialising, but you don't seems to see much difference between the stone age and now. Certainly not enough to notice that it's stupid to think we can just change parts of modern society for stone-age equivalents.
Basically, the RIAA serves its purpose: to lower the barrier of entry into the music profession. I don't agree with their lack of care in their lawsuit strategy, but I agree that we need to stop piracy now, before it becomes any more of a social norm, and I can't think of a better way to do it than to use lawsuits. At least the RIAA doesn't discriminate music availability by internet access. That said, I'm not tied to the RIAA, so as soon as Radiohead release their album in stores, I'm going to get it.
BTW, why was my post overrated? It was only on score two and it wasn't at all offensive.