Number one, there's such a thing as verbal harassment. Society protects people from harassment for their views. It's part of protecting free speech.
Number two, there's a very vocal group in any issue, ready to harass you. It's not like "the people" all hate her views, and that this is just karmic retribution. Perhaps you'd like to post your details to some rabid pro-copyright zealots and take responsibility for your actions.
Number three, I was only noticing there was an inequality in an anonymous coward posting contact details.
So when everyone believed that the earth was a cube, it was true?
No. What's that got to do with the conversation? All I was saying was that copying is considered stealing. That doesn't make it true, it just means that some people consider it stealing. Why don't you people ever actually read my posts?
What benefits?
Benefits like a culture with any sort of health. In our capitalist society, everything revolves around money. An artist's living costs money. Everyone's time is worth money. It makes sense to make culture about money, because otherwise, the incentives for being an artist will be far outweighed by the incentives of doing a job that you get paid for. It's really simple stuff.
A "copyfest" is only economically unrealistic if the companies which own the media have not crafted a business model that works with technology rather than trying to ignore it.
That's true in a way. The unfortunate thing is that no-one has managed to squeeze any money out of the piracy of their art. So far, we have no business model that can survive such a lack of scarcity, so we create artificial scarcity. It's the best we have so far. It's all well and good to criticise the MPAA/RIAA for being dinosaurs, but it's another thing altogether to actually make a constructive and practical suggestion to change their business model in a way that doesn't significantly hurt our culture.
The horse and buggy companies either got with the times and started making cars, or they died out - technology progressed as a result, and the market was better for it.
Perhaps so, but the times are increasingly gearing towards a self-destructing culture. Sometimes modern times simply aren't that good. Sometimes we need to change them to better society. Sometimes the market isn't better off going with the flow.
The most unique ability of computers is infinite free copying. Don't artificially hinder it with laws that restrain what comes naturally.
That sounds like the old "information wants to be free" mantra. The fact that computers can copy is NOT a reason why we should just let them do it as much as they want. Humans are great at being violent, but we try to curb that in the interests of society. Computers are great at distributing series of letters and numbers (such as your credit card information), yet again we curb such behaviour. We have laws to prevent the natural entropic decay of society of which piracy is a small part of.
Um... I'm all for not posting people's personal information online, but this is publicly available contact information at the company she publicly speaks on behalf of.
Well, fair enough. I still think it's a little one-sided to spam someone's details like that on a very active thread of a very active forum, filled with people who hate her. Each individual passionate may be fine and appropriate, but when they come in huge numbers (the slashdot effect), then it gets nasty. However, I think the least you could do, being a publicly posting slashdotter, is not post anonymously, so that people like her can respond to you without you disappearing into the ether.
download a P2P client, and start downloading, then yes, it's considered stealing.
It isn't.
Uhh, no, it actually is. Just because you or I don't think it is doesn't mean that it's considered stealing. It's the people out there who genuinely consider it stealing that make that statement true.
You may consider this stealing, but your humble opinion isn't a measure for... anything.
I may, but I did stipulate down the bottom of my post that I don't necessarily agree with some or all of the opinions in the corporate world about stealing.
I also realise that I've been completely non-committal up to this point, so let me say this for the record: I don't think it's stealing. I do think it's wrong, and I completely understand the viewpoint of those who do think it is, but I personally do not. I guess it's a matter of definition. As far as I'm concerned, you are taking something that isn't yours, and that you haven't paid for. You are depriving the artists and publishers of a potential sale, which can be quantified into a definite number (factoring in probability of a sale taking place without the piracy event). But my personal definition of stealing does not cover deprivation of sale potential.
Their idea obviosly was to indoctrinate the copying masses through permanent, ceaseless, Josef Goebbels or 1984 like repetitions of a simple but grave idea that copying is somehow stealing (Copyingisstealingcopyingisstealingcopyingisstealingcopyingisstealing) so they would start to prosecute and denounce each other when caught copying something and save the copyright nazis alota work.
I dunno. I thought the idea was to make and keep culture producing profitable, and to provide real incentives for artists to put more time and effort into their work. I thought it was to keep society from backsliding into economically unviable copyfest, and to uphold the benefits that copyright provides. But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps they just like indoctrinating people for some reason.
it's copyright infringement. Oh, darn it. Wrong story.
It's that too! Mark my words: Universal will insisted that the thief pay licensing fees for possessing the Indiana Jones script without reimbursing the artists. That's on top of returning it, and any civil lawsuits/criminal prosecution.
You're right. I think they should start a new site: "Metadot" or something like that. We can have stories about Slashdot, comments about slashdot, complaints about the moderation system, complaints about trolls, complaints about the newsworthiness of items on slashdot, and about anonymous cowards (etc, etc). Sound better?
If you asked to speak candidly at a meeting, were given permission and you stood up and said "Our products suck, no one I know likes them and we're a laughing stock", a good company would maybe want to hear more details as part of an improvement process.
On the other hand, if his opinion turns out to be just that: one man's opinion, then keeping someone with such a negative attitude to the company and their products would not be beneficial to keep. May sound hideously corrupt and a violation free speech, but it's the truth.
We're stealing when we expect to use an iPhone the way we want to use it
... provided that the way you want to use the iPhone constitutes stealing. For example, making a phone call isn't stealing. Using google earth to see your house isn't stealing. Listening to music you legally bought, and have used legally previously isn't stealing (according to most in the corporate world). Hell, even cracking your iPhone isn't considered stealing (but it is still considered immoral). If you crack the iPhone, download a P2P client, and start downloading, then yes, it's considered stealing.
We're stealing when we assume "unlimited" bandwidth means "unlimited" bandwidth.
Wrong. The assumption has nothing to do with it. Hell, even going through the glass ceiling isn't stealing if you take the subsequent throttling like a man.
We're stealing when we borrow a book from the library or from friend.
Perhaps with certain people, but not from the corporate world as a whole.
We're stealing when we pay for health insurance and then actually use it.
Again, depends on how you use it. Sure the insurance companies don't like forking out cash, but that doesn't mean they think it's stealing.
We're stealing when we expect the government to do something useful with our tax money like provide health care to children instead of providing security services to oil companies in Iraq.
Hmm. I haven't heard that one. Can you provide an example of when someone called campaigning against the war "stealing"?
Of course, I'm not saying I agree with any of the claims expressed by the corporate world. It's just that you seem to have greatly simplified the positions of the "corporate world". What's particularly grating about it is that there are plenty of legitimate outrage against some of the opinions expressed by people from the corporate world (such as the one we're discussing here), and all this broad-stroke tarring does nothing but trivialise the real problems. It's kinda funny that this kind of thing is coming from Slashdot, since in my experience, I've found Slashdotters to take offence to being accused of groupthink, when this is essentially what you are doing to the corporate sector.
Y'know that law that makes yelling "FIRE" in a theatre illegal? I think we need a Slashdot equivalent. Yelling "BOYCOTT" in a crowd of Slashdotters discussing Sony... well... let's just say it could get ugly. Really ugly.
According to this statement, the only music you should be able to play actual pre-recorded minidiscs, which I don't even think are sold anymore.
Naturally. The minidisc players are for indy labels, creative commons style licensed music, and personal recordings. It's nice to see that Sony is going to beyond the call to avoid antitrust violations. What other company produces products that actively discourage purchasing other products from the same company? I, for one, am thoroughly impressed.;)
Great! Now Mr Coward, you can post your contact details so we can ring you and tell you what we think of you! Hey, Jennifer can join in too. She can share her opinions with you about posting other people's details on sites who hate them. You must admit, it's only fair.
Did anyone else notice that she says "I suppose we can say he stole a song"? It seems a little non-committal to express it as a personal view, rather than as a representative of a Sony. Was it meant as a personal response, or as hypothetical posturing, or was it just cautiously delivering the opinion held by Sony itself?
One thing's for sure: if we play by those rules, Sony music will become WAAAAAAAAAY overpriced.
At risk of a flamebait mod or too, I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with the parent post. It's true: there are certain countries that have long-standing mutual hatred from years of conflict. The hatred builds into massive disrespect for the other people. Now this is person to person, both intelligent, both with the potential for empathy, neither exercising that potential. How can you expect them to respect a creature of a different species, especially one that won't return such respect?
Feckless, sub 70 IQ, hate-filled, child abusing, woman raping savages.
Intelligence can be very subjective. While they may score sub 70 in certain IQ tests, chances are they'll excel in areas that you personally would fail dismally in. However, your post tells me exactly where such relativity ends...
I am a patent attorney who tries to get his clients good, valid patents for any technology, including those that are implemented in software.
And I'm someone who doesn't believe in the software patent system. I don't suppose you can give us any examples of the kind of software patents you help push through? Or would that breach some confidentiality laws?
I, for one, actually think it isn't that obvious and rather cool. I haven't seen it implemented before (granted the range of software I've seen is relatively limited). But the fact that this cool idea has been used in some corner of the software spectrum shows just how bad an idea software patents are.
As a side note, I must say, I don't get why artists complaining that their music isn't being paid for makes them akin to "drug pushers", or "RIAA stooges". Can't they just, y'know, want some money for their work? Can't they think it's unethical for people to consume but not pay for their art?
Their message is "I am cool. I use the newest stuff. My dick is bigger than yours".
Prove it. Prove that managers are just corporate bimbos drunk on penis envy. It doesn't seem exactly plausible on its own, so you'll need to prove it. I mean, it isn't unreasonable to stick to a standard like MS Office. They know that there will be many people using it in the future, and they don't want to fall behind in the communications. They may also get decent tech support for it. But naturally, since they don't choose open source over MS Office, they are corporate assholes, and idiots, and they want you to fail in reading their messages, and they're insecure in their penis size, and... and... and... they're smelly!
except that MIT already showed that under certain conditions foil on the head actually focuses electromagnetic radiation, a very ineffective "brain wave shield" indeed.
it'd be better if companies like this opened their products because they truly believed in openness, rather than to beat the competition over the head.
A corporation doesn't have beliefs, only shareholders (and their beliefs), and methods for generating profits. Competition is a great way of promoting openness. I don't think we can afford to be choosy on which "open company" that we support, and I don't think there's a meaningful difference between a company going open and a company who "believes" in open. All this artificial distinction does is lead to tragic disillusionment regarding the corporate world.
Slashdot Mirror
That's bullshit.
Number one, there's such a thing as verbal harassment. Society protects people from harassment for their views. It's part of protecting free speech.
Number two, there's a very vocal group in any issue, ready to harass you. It's not like "the people" all hate her views, and that this is just karmic retribution. Perhaps you'd like to post your details to some rabid pro-copyright zealots and take responsibility for your actions.
Number three, I was only noticing there was an inequality in an anonymous coward posting contact details.
I also realise that I've been completely non-committal up to this point, so let me say this for the record: I don't think it's stealing. I do think it's wrong, and I completely understand the viewpoint of those who do think it is, but I personally do not. I guess it's a matter of definition. As far as I'm concerned, you are taking something that isn't yours, and that you haven't paid for. You are depriving the artists and publishers of a potential sale, which can be quantified into a definite number (factoring in probability of a sale taking place without the piracy event). But my personal definition of stealing does not cover deprivation of sale potential.I dunno. I thought the idea was to make and keep culture producing profitable, and to provide real incentives for artists to put more time and effort into their work. I thought it was to keep society from backsliding into economically unviable copyfest, and to uphold the benefits that copyright provides. But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps they just like indoctrinating people for some reason.
You're right. I think they should start a new site: "Metadot" or something like that. We can have stories about Slashdot, comments about slashdot, complaints about the moderation system, complaints about trolls, complaints about the newsworthiness of items on slashdot, and about anonymous cowards (etc, etc). Sound better?
Of course, I'm not saying I agree with any of the claims expressed by the corporate world. It's just that you seem to have greatly simplified the positions of the "corporate world". What's particularly grating about it is that there are plenty of legitimate outrage against some of the opinions expressed by people from the corporate world (such as the one we're discussing here), and all this broad-stroke tarring does nothing but trivialise the real problems. It's kinda funny that this kind of thing is coming from Slashdot, since in my experience, I've found Slashdotters to take offence to being accused of groupthink, when this is essentially what you are doing to the corporate sector.
Y'know that law that makes yelling "FIRE" in a theatre illegal? I think we need a Slashdot equivalent. Yelling "BOYCOTT" in a crowd of Slashdotters discussing Sony... well... let's just say it could get ugly. Really ugly.
Great! Now Mr Coward, you can post your contact details so we can ring you and tell you what we think of you! Hey, Jennifer can join in too. She can share her opinions with you about posting other people's details on sites who hate them. You must admit, it's only fair.
Did anyone else notice that she says "I suppose we can say he stole a song"? It seems a little non-committal to express it as a personal view, rather than as a representative of a Sony. Was it meant as a personal response, or as hypothetical posturing, or was it just cautiously delivering the opinion held by Sony itself?
One thing's for sure: if we play by those rules, Sony music will become WAAAAAAAAAY overpriced.
I beg to differ. I have it from a reliable source that the Nazi's didn't log IPs either! The German government is *clearly* evil.
At risk of a flamebait mod or too, I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with the parent post. It's true: there are certain countries that have long-standing mutual hatred from years of conflict. The hatred builds into massive disrespect for the other people. Now this is person to person, both intelligent, both with the potential for empathy, neither exercising that potential. How can you expect them to respect a creature of a different species, especially one that won't return such respect?
I, for one, actually think it isn't that obvious and rather cool. I haven't seen it implemented before (granted the range of software I've seen is relatively limited). But the fact that this cool idea has been used in some corner of the software spectrum shows just how bad an idea software patents are.
So it's nothing to do with their music then?
As a side note, I must say, I don't get why artists complaining that their music isn't being paid for makes them akin to "drug pushers", or "RIAA stooges". Can't they just, y'know, want some money for their work? Can't they think it's unethical for people to consume but not pay for their art?
Almost 10 years of combating ideological and intellectual complacency!
Me personally, I like Radiohead, with the exception of their latest, which I found uninspired.