What? Indie games need to be good, because otherwise they're mediocre, indistinguishable from the flood of other mediocre indie games. Mediocre indie games can't get attention like other mediocre games, since they don't have marketing as a back-door.
An analogy: Copyright is a bridge half built. There is a problem (but not systemic, as you pointed out) in that it's useless. One solution is to knock it down and make people drive the extra 50 miles to the airport, and fly small domestic flights to the other side of the bridge, or another is to finish the bridge. Clearly it's everyone's best interests to finish the bridge (including, coincidentally, the bridge builder, who may or may not suggest finishing it). Also, in every stage of the bridges' construction, it hasn't worked at all, but the moment that it's finished, it will be extremely useful.
And, to answer your question, I don't believe that this guy is recommending what's best for the general public. But I do believe that copyright can be fixed, or at least, we haven't exhausted all possibilities for fixing it.
You see, I see no reason to think that copyright is unfixable. That carries a heavy burden of proof, since unfixable is almost indistinguishable from "not thinking creatively enough". How about this as the beginnings of a method:
- Subsidise copyright infringement cases. Make it a criminal affair, forbid, or at least discourage, civil suits. That should take care of overzealous and sloppy RIAA enforcement of their copyrights, as well as help indie artists get equal protection for their copyrights. - Monitor P2P networks; keep publicly searchable logs of the files traversing them. All these networks are public, and can be monitored by anyone, so there is no privacy risk. That takes care of public P2P networks. - If two people wish to share something over a private network, there isn't a whole lot a person can do to detect or prevent such a transaction, but at the same time, there isn't a whole lot of copies that can be made over a private network, so we basically let it slide (unless, of course, they are stupid enough to share privately with the copyright holder or a policeman). - University and college networks are a hotbed for piracy. Again, provide incentives for efforts to filter such activity. Again, university and college networks are not private networks, and so there is no privacy issue there. - To help us with added tax burden, the state takes a slice of every fine.
What's good for the artists is that enforcement and retribution are far more accessible and effective than under our current system. What's good for the general public is (apart from the fact that the overhead cost for artists is reduced) that we no longer have suffer the RIAA claiming million dollar damages, or accusing people without computers of P2P piracy.
But, of course, I can't claim to have thought it completely through. There may well gaping holes that I'm missing, or some kind of crucial oversight.
Monopolies are not illegal, and I think that's the business of artists to decide for themselves. Perhaps some intervention is needed if their contracts are misleading, but I haven't heard of any complaints in that respect.
Copyright law is only benefitting publishers now, not the musicians/developers/artists/authors it was originally intended for.
Do you even understand the distinction between big labels and copyright law? All I see above is a rant against big labels, wrapped up with a conclusion that has seemingly nothing to do with the statements preceding it. These small labels that you're talking about, more often than not, use copyright to sell their records. They can't afford to do any differently.
Many of the works we consider "great", and part of our cultural heritage, were produced before copyright, and many were also produced without the prospect of payment in the artist's lifetime.
Like what? Most great composers worked for commission from wealthy people who hoard culture at the expense of the common man. Even then, it took until copyright before recordings were distributed to the general public.
Culture being hoarded by the uber-wealthy? That sounds familiar somehow.
Copyright is an issue that needs to work itself out. We have an abundance people here on slashdot who are very eager to tell you that they know what's best for culture. That just because a few musicians toured their local regions before copyright, if we ignore copyright, we will somehow get a rich culture, comparable to what we have now. I simply cannot fathom why people are lusting over the good old days of yore, when there were no recordings to pirate (or why they use them as an excuse to pirate), but they are and they do.
All you can reasonably guarantee, if we get rid of copyright, is that all the people who do not produce for profit, will continue to produce. Other than that, you are guaranteed nothing. It is more than likely that commercial artists will stop distributing in any significant volume, and get a job to support their means. We will be, in all likelihood, stuck with the same choices for free music post copyright that we have now.
So, if anyone here wish to experience the post-copyright utopia, I suggest you go looking for it, because it's here. Today. Our wandering minstrels, who tour for a living, are playing at your local pub on friday night. All those eager amateurs, making their recordings in their basements, are still trying to find leeches for their torrents. The system for word of mouth promotion is already in place. Everything you want/predicted is already here, and all it needs is for you to become a part of it. So, with that in mind, I politely suggest you go enjoy your utopia, and stay the fuck out of mine!
We "cripple" it because it isn't safe. Just like spooking the horses also wasn't safe when they were populating the roads. Until people learn that cars are no longer noisy, I would except nothing less than "crippling".
Are americans much more probable to commit crimes than any other people, in the whole world?
It's possible. The US police force is seriously under-funded and may be less of a disincentive to criminals than in other countries. So people living in america may be less likely to decide not to do a crime they really, really want to do.
Is it possible some people currently in US jails are innocent?
It's perfectly possible. A better question would be, "How could we possibly make it impossible?" I'm pretty sure that is impossible, without throwing out the law altogether.
Is it totally impossible a part of these are in essence political prisoners?
Is it totally impossible that you're an Iranian agent trying to erode my faith in the US government and the US legal system? Of course not. Is it at all likely? Not at all.
AFAIC fighting governments in any way is fighting against oppression for freedom.
Oh, so when John Wilkes Booth decided to shoot Lincoln, it was to fight the oppression of emancipation, for the freedom to own slaves? Do you have any idea how dangerously stupid you sound?
Which is why teachers are so vehemently opposed to testing children and assessing how much they know - since this reflects directly on them, not the kids
... which is where I realised you were talking out of your ass.
I know several good, committed teachers in public schools (I am not one, but I considered it for a period). Their kids' results are far from a black eye on their career, and yet, they believe that we go too far with testing and assessing. Why? Because kids actually learn less when information is forcibly rammed down their throats. Sure, they study, but they study it in such a way that they don't retain the information in the long term. As soon as the cramming and the subsequent exam is over, the information is promptly forgotten, often for studying another exam.
Let me tell you about one of my teachers from high school. He had many years of experience and had retained a lot of enthusiasm for his subject. We learned a lot in a variety of ways, to keep us interested in the subject. However, when we started to get to our senior years, he started introducing a specific technique in his lessons that was not at all fun, and not at all helpful for long term learning. It was basically designed explicitly to give kids the highest possible mark in the end of school exams. It was very effective, but it did absolutely nothing to promote any long-term learning, and it didn't help at all in everyday life. He didn't do it out of laziness, he did it out of genuine concern about our final exam marks, and to make studying for them easier, but fuck it was boring. I don't remember a single thing about that class from those years. Not one thing. I remember plenty of stuff from the earlier years, where we actually learned things, but not a thing from the later years. His technique got me through the final exams, but I can't help but feel that the time was wasted.
What I'm trying to say is that sometimes, we don't want to simply optimise based on raw marks.
The parent is, without a shadow of a doubt, not a troll. I disagree with his apparent viewpoint as much as anyone here, but this censorship, thinly disguised as moderation abuse, is truly pathetic. Please mod the parent +1 underrated.
I know this isn't a laughing matter, but I can't help it. I think it's pretty funny that you think a recorder will stop the kind of police brutality that you've previously seen on recordings posted on youtube.
And I suppose that the only reason why potential identity thieves don't use RFID is because then others will steal their identity with their RFID chips!
I'm sorry, but did you just completely ignore the reason why ICBMs have never successfully used for nefarious purposes? You put it front and centre in your analogy, so it's kinda hard not to see the gaping hole.
This sounds like another medium getting a classification system. Over here, most people are fine with classification systems, and many need them to help determine whether something is appropriate for their kids. I don't see why iPhones should be given a special exemption from classification, if they're so popular with children.
The real issue here is an old one: the lack of a R18+ rating preventing certain games to be sold. This is an artefact from gaming's infancy. As adult gamers increase, this will inevitably change (I predict sooner than later).
And then, all you need is another $500,000 on promotion to differentiate yourself from the flood of other crappy garage band recordings. Creating music is and always was easy. Distributing music used to be difficult, but now it's easy. Advertising, making a name for yourself, and actually seeing any returns (financial or otherwise) from your distribution is still very difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
Where does it say that it's illegal to better at your job than anyone else?
What? Indie games need to be good, because otherwise they're mediocre, indistinguishable from the flood of other mediocre indie games. Mediocre indie games can't get attention like other mediocre games, since they don't have marketing as a back-door.
An analogy: Copyright is a bridge half built. There is a problem (but not systemic, as you pointed out) in that it's useless. One solution is to knock it down and make people drive the extra 50 miles to the airport, and fly small domestic flights to the other side of the bridge, or another is to finish the bridge. Clearly it's everyone's best interests to finish the bridge (including, coincidentally, the bridge builder, who may or may not suggest finishing it). Also, in every stage of the bridges' construction, it hasn't worked at all, but the moment that it's finished, it will be extremely useful.
And, to answer your question, I don't believe that this guy is recommending what's best for the general public. But I do believe that copyright can be fixed, or at least, we haven't exhausted all possibilities for fixing it.
You see, I see no reason to think that copyright is unfixable. That carries a heavy burden of proof, since unfixable is almost indistinguishable from "not thinking creatively enough". How about this as the beginnings of a method:
- Subsidise copyright infringement cases. Make it a criminal affair, forbid, or at least discourage, civil suits. That should take care of overzealous and sloppy RIAA enforcement of their copyrights, as well as help indie artists get equal protection for their copyrights.
- Monitor P2P networks; keep publicly searchable logs of the files traversing them. All these networks are public, and can be monitored by anyone, so there is no privacy risk. That takes care of public P2P networks.
- If two people wish to share something over a private network, there isn't a whole lot a person can do to detect or prevent such a transaction, but at the same time, there isn't a whole lot of copies that can be made over a private network, so we basically let it slide (unless, of course, they are stupid enough to share privately with the copyright holder or a policeman).
- University and college networks are a hotbed for piracy. Again, provide incentives for efforts to filter such activity. Again, university and college networks are not private networks, and so there is no privacy issue there.
- To help us with added tax burden, the state takes a slice of every fine.
What's good for the artists is that enforcement and retribution are far more accessible and effective than under our current system. What's good for the general public is (apart from the fact that the overhead cost for artists is reduced) that we no longer have suffer the RIAA claiming million dollar damages, or accusing people without computers of P2P piracy.
But, of course, I can't claim to have thought it completely through. There may well gaping holes that I'm missing, or some kind of crucial oversight.
Fair enough. It's just that I've encountered plenty of people who have difficulty making the distinction, and this kind of sloppiness doesn't help.
Citations will not come between a pirate and his booty. :-(
Yes. Because there is a systemic problem, he's suggesting that we improve it. See, there are other ways to fix something than to just throw it away.
Monopolies are not illegal, and I think that's the business of artists to decide for themselves. Perhaps some intervention is needed if their contracts are misleading, but I haven't heard of any complaints in that respect.
Do you even understand the distinction between big labels and copyright law? All I see above is a rant against big labels, wrapped up with a conclusion that has seemingly nothing to do with the statements preceding it. These small labels that you're talking about, more often than not, use copyright to sell their records. They can't afford to do any differently.
Like what? Most great composers worked for commission from wealthy people who hoard culture at the expense of the common man. Even then, it took until copyright before recordings were distributed to the general public.
Culture being hoarded by the uber-wealthy? That sounds familiar somehow.
You're absolutely correct.
Copyright is an issue that needs to work itself out. We have an abundance people here on slashdot who are very eager to tell you that they know what's best for culture. That just because a few musicians toured their local regions before copyright, if we ignore copyright, we will somehow get a rich culture, comparable to what we have now. I simply cannot fathom why people are lusting over the good old days of yore, when there were no recordings to pirate (or why they use them as an excuse to pirate), but they are and they do.
All you can reasonably guarantee, if we get rid of copyright, is that all the people who do not produce for profit, will continue to produce. Other than that, you are guaranteed nothing. It is more than likely that commercial artists will stop distributing in any significant volume, and get a job to support their means. We will be, in all likelihood, stuck with the same choices for free music post copyright that we have now.
So, if anyone here wish to experience the post-copyright utopia, I suggest you go looking for it, because it's here. Today. Our wandering minstrels, who tour for a living, are playing at your local pub on friday night. All those eager amateurs, making their recordings in their basements, are still trying to find leeches for their torrents. The system for word of mouth promotion is already in place. Everything you want/predicted is already here, and all it needs is for you to become a part of it. So, with that in mind, I politely suggest you go enjoy your utopia, and stay the fuck out of mine!
We "cripple" it because it isn't safe. Just like spooking the horses also wasn't safe when they were populating the roads. Until people learn that cars are no longer noisy, I would except nothing less than "crippling".
It's possible. The US police force is seriously under-funded and may be less of a disincentive to criminals than in other countries. So people living in america may be less likely to decide not to do a crime they really, really want to do.
It's perfectly possible. A better question would be, "How could we possibly make it impossible?" I'm pretty sure that is impossible, without throwing out the law altogether.
Is it totally impossible that you're an Iranian agent trying to erode my faith in the US government and the US legal system? Of course not. Is it at all likely? Not at all.
Oh, so when John Wilkes Booth decided to shoot Lincoln, it was to fight the oppression of emancipation, for the freedom to own slaves? Do you have any idea how dangerously stupid you sound?
... which is where I realised you were talking out of your ass.
I know several good, committed teachers in public schools (I am not one, but I considered it for a period). Their kids' results are far from a black eye on their career, and yet, they believe that we go too far with testing and assessing. Why? Because kids actually learn less when information is forcibly rammed down their throats. Sure, they study, but they study it in such a way that they don't retain the information in the long term. As soon as the cramming and the subsequent exam is over, the information is promptly forgotten, often for studying another exam.
Let me tell you about one of my teachers from high school. He had many years of experience and had retained a lot of enthusiasm for his subject. We learned a lot in a variety of ways, to keep us interested in the subject. However, when we started to get to our senior years, he started introducing a specific technique in his lessons that was not at all fun, and not at all helpful for long term learning. It was basically designed explicitly to give kids the highest possible mark in the end of school exams. It was very effective, but it did absolutely nothing to promote any long-term learning, and it didn't help at all in everyday life. He didn't do it out of laziness, he did it out of genuine concern about our final exam marks, and to make studying for them easier, but fuck it was boring. I don't remember a single thing about that class from those years. Not one thing. I remember plenty of stuff from the earlier years, where we actually learned things, but not a thing from the later years. His technique got me through the final exams, but I can't help but feel that the time was wasted.
What I'm trying to say is that sometimes, we don't want to simply optimise based on raw marks.
The parent is, without a shadow of a doubt, not a troll. I disagree with his apparent viewpoint as much as anyone here, but this censorship, thinly disguised as moderation abuse, is truly pathetic. Please mod the parent +1 underrated.
I know this isn't a laughing matter, but I can't help it. I think it's pretty funny that you think a recorder will stop the kind of police brutality that you've previously seen on recordings posted on youtube.
And I suppose that the only reason why potential identity thieves don't use RFID is because then others will steal their identity with their RFID chips!
I'm sorry, but did you just completely ignore the reason why ICBMs have never successfully used for nefarious purposes? You put it front and centre in your analogy, so it's kinda hard not to see the gaping hole.
But:
Not yet attacked == not attackable - been in the wild for so long
Well, not necessarily, of course, but after so long, we'd have to start concluding that our initial fears are no longer valid.
I think I speak for everyone here when I say that no we don't.
This sounds like another medium getting a classification system. Over here, most people are fine with classification systems, and many need them to help determine whether something is appropriate for their kids. I don't see why iPhones should be given a special exemption from classification, if they're so popular with children.
The real issue here is an old one: the lack of a R18+ rating preventing certain games to be sold. This is an artefact from gaming's infancy. As adult gamers increase, this will inevitably change (I predict sooner than later).
Well played.
LOL THNGS FROM 205 STIL EXIST DUMBAS
I FOUND THES N3AT ANGLISH 2 INT3RNAT SP3AK TRANSLA2R!11!!! OMG LOL
http://ssshotaru.homestead.com/files/aolertranslator.html
Sir, your deeply intellectual, logically unassailable argument has a majestic beauty and subtlety, but I can come up with a more compact version:
"I don't like it, so therefore it's completely useless."
I know, it lacks the grace of your argument, but I feel that the brevity really illuminates the logic of behind your reasoning.
And then, all you need is another $500,000 on promotion to differentiate yourself from the flood of other crappy garage band recordings. Creating music is and always was easy. Distributing music used to be difficult, but now it's easy. Advertising, making a name for yourself, and actually seeing any returns (financial or otherwise) from your distribution is still very difficult.