It's rather interesting to see that Microsoft publicly says: "We want to stop peoples freedom of choice". Cause that's what they're doing. With an open format you have the freedom to choose application, but with being locked down to closed formats, you don't have a choice.
I guess so. I also guess we're anti-America, 'cause we support FOSS and open documents, rather than paying for the software/document format designed by corporations, right?
If your goal is to be universally liked and loved, by all means keep quiet and keep your nose in your own business.
My goal is to do unto others what I would have them do unto me. I don't expect, for example, people of other cultures to disrupt my life, point out where I'm being morally degenerate, force me to change. and finally, to add insult to injury, pat themselves on the back for it. If I shared more of your beliefs, I would invade your space and force you to accept a passive ideology. As it stands, I prefer to try to convince you purely with rhetoric.
We've tried the first option (hell, EVERYONE has) and it just doesn't work.
I think we often overestimate how much the general public knows/cares about this stuff.
This is very true. Name almost any issue discussed on slashdot, and you'll probably find that people either haven't heard, don't care, or heard only fleeting details. I think we work each other up, and convince ourselves of the importance of these issues in terms of the bigger picture. The reality is different, and a little disheartening.
It reminds me of a National Geographic article that had "Was Darwin wrong?" filling one page, and "No. The evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming" filling the next.
The most obvious standard for turning over material would be "criminal activity only," but that isn't liberal enough -- what happens when the alleged act shouldn't be a crime to begin with? (See, for example, the PATRIOT Act and DMCA, in many cases.)
Simple. Obey, and lobby to change the laws you don't like afterwards. It's legal, it's safe, and it encourages diversity among the political environment.
Hell, look where the passive resistance approach to copyright law has gotten us. The RIAA is extorting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H suing people with bugger all evidence, and still manage to keep the moral higher ground in many circles!
... but it's definitely misguided. You can't simply enforce your morality on all those around you in this day and age. That's sort of thing that starts nuclear wars, encourages terrorism (hell, it's the cause of terrorism), and breaks diplomatic and economic links between you and neighbouring nations. I agree with the OP: don't interfere aggressively. Let them censor, but don't do them any favours, like let them in the EU.
I think that there is a flaw in your logic. You state that "they obviously can't make a profit" I don't think that anyone in the industry has ever argued that they aren't making a profit - they are saying that it hurts their profit. The problem is that it is hard to prove how much with statistics.
I apologise. Please excuse the expression. What I meant was that they can't compete (the labels or artists) with piracy over the internet. If every average joe could do most music pirates do, I have little doubt the industry would wither, if not die. People are selfish by nature, especially to those who have lost their respect, or to those who the law has lost respect for. It's true that we don't know exactly the statistics (we only have CD sales to go by), but I believe that it must take a significant chunk out of sales. It seems to be logical, predictable economics: if you make something ubiquitous and cheap to duplicate, you are going to hurt the producers. This would be fine if it were a legal force, one that was contributing to our music culture, but it isn't. It simply parrots the same music. And it will continue to parrot the same music over and over unless there is significant contributions.
I dabble in writing and I would be thrilled to have people interested enough in my work to go to the effort doing something illegal.
Good for you. But it really is no trouble at all. Seriously.
This isn't just the RIAA. This is congress trying to introduce education about the legality of copyright infringement. It is not morally wrong to teach in schools about a law. It doesn't matter whether it is copyright infringement, theft, assault, insider trading, or whatever else you can come up with. Just because it happens to benefit Big Media, doesn't mean that it's immoral.
If you want to stop it, change the laws. Otherwise quit yer whining.
Accept it, move on, and STFU only when there is no problem. Well, there is a problem. Not only that, it is a legal problem. The RIAA and the music stores are competing with an illegal movement. They obviously can't make a profit, because people, against the law and against (my) morality, are getting the music they alone are responsible for, for next to nothing. They have a right to be angry, they have a right to sue (as long as they don't abuse the legal system while they are at it), they have a right to try to solve the problem. I have no doubt that they will still whine if they were against a legal competitor, but for now, I believe (despite the bungles) that they still have the moral and legal higher ground.
Let's face it - as musicians, as listeners - the producers and consumers - we're going to be fine.
Prove it. Set up an online independent music label and legitimately compete with the RIAA. I'm still yet to see an indie label that is doing as well as any of the RIAA's big labels. I think that is because the internet is not quite ubiquitous, secure, fast (at least here in Australia), or average-joe-friendly enough to cut out physical media. So there are still some distribution costs for those who don't want to use the internet.
Stop pirating music! If you stop, we have much greater leverage against the RIAA and their campaigns. We could get them to stop the lawsuits, possibly reverse some of the DMCA laws that we don't like, and even get them to lower their prices. Once you prove that it's their prices and business model that is killing them, then they have no choice but to stop whinging.
It's going to be difficult, since the RIAA will kick up a fuss. Perhaps fund a few studies here, lobby a few congressmen there, you know what I mean. Nevertheless, the proof would lie in the dwindling P2P networks, with infringing files becoming more and more rare. Even the people determined to pirate would be hard-pressed to find the files they are looking for. The whole affair, once momentum is gained, would become easier and easier.
Yes, you should respect other cultures. The same way we like the authorities to butt the hell out of our lives, the way we like privacy and the freedom to think and believe the way we want.
In my day, we called that kind of stuff flamebait.
And today, I call it perspective. Now I know roughly how Thailand values the Internet, and how much they like the idea of public contributions to public cultural projects (like OSS and YouTube). You watch: it'll be the forums next.
Y'know, that comment did have some meaning once. There were times when it represented a legitimate concern for the future, for others around you, etc. All very reasonable. Now it's bandied around to further one's own political desires, so on Slashdot, we point it out, and ridicule it. Inserting into your off-topic post to try to derail the GP's legitimate point subtracts from Slashdot's ridicule of this phrase. Please don't do it again.
Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) continuous uploading, downloading or streaming of audio or video programming or games;
That's absolute rubbish! They can't just go around pulling the plug on people's access for downloading movies or games or music or whatever! I mean, I'm no heavy user or pirate but I do this kind of thing all the time! I'm not going to let them pull my connection! No wa
If they say it's unlimited, then it should be unlimited
Agreed, but what I find even worse is the reason they use to justify it. It's like they're saying, "our plans are unlimited - anyone who proves us wrong is a criminal". And not really a criminal, but someone who downloads movies (copyrighted or not).
Don't buy in, if you don't want to be part of their anti-user smear campaign!
Slashdot Mirror
But I think the **AA would lobby against it. Oh well...
But not as redundant as the parent.
We get it already! Enough!
It doesn't need to be stealing to still be harmful, selfish, and morally corrupt.
I prefer "bandwidth neck-stomping"
... that the only capital letter in the parent's entire post was in the middle of "BluRay"?
... such a let down when you reach the summary.
It reminds me of a National Geographic article that had "Was Darwin wrong?" filling one page, and "No. The evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming" filling the next.
Hell, look where the passive resistance approach to copyright law has gotten us. The RIAA is extorting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H suing people with bugger all evidence, and still manage to keep the moral higher ground in many circles!
... but it's definitely misguided. You can't simply enforce your morality on all those around you in this day and age. That's sort of thing that starts nuclear wars, encourages terrorism (hell, it's the cause of terrorism), and breaks diplomatic and economic links between you and neighbouring nations. I agree with the OP: don't interfere aggressively. Let them censor, but don't do them any favours, like let them in the EU.
No explanation needed :p
This isn't just the RIAA. This is congress trying to introduce education about the legality of copyright infringement. It is not morally wrong to teach in schools about a law. It doesn't matter whether it is copyright infringement, theft, assault, insider trading, or whatever else you can come up with. Just because it happens to benefit Big Media, doesn't mean that it's immoral.
If you want to stop it, change the laws. Otherwise quit yer whining.
Stop pirating music! If you stop, we have much greater leverage against the RIAA and their campaigns. We could get them to stop the lawsuits, possibly reverse some of the DMCA laws that we don't like, and even get them to lower their prices. Once you prove that it's their prices and business model that is killing them, then they have no choice but to stop whinging.
It's going to be difficult, since the RIAA will kick up a fuss. Perhaps fund a few studies here, lobby a few congressmen there, you know what I mean. Nevertheless, the proof would lie in the dwindling P2P networks, with infringing files becoming more and more rare. Even the people determined to pirate would be hard-pressed to find the files they are looking for. The whole affair, once momentum is gained, would become easier and easier.
Congratulations. You have fallen for the first and most obvious trap in these conversations.
Let me put it this way: one man's zealous lunatic is another's good citizen. And one man's social critic is another's rude moral degenerate.
Yes, you should respect other cultures. The same way we like the authorities to butt the hell out of our lives, the way we like privacy and the freedom to think and believe the way we want.
No I didn't, and yes I realised.
Are these restrictions on internet usage legal (especially since the plan is advertised as "unlimited")?
Don't buy in, if you don't want to be part of their anti-user smear campaign!