I think it was more of a semantics fail. Besides, there are an odd number of/. users. This guy is number 1074535, and he is, as of this post, the latest person to register for/. This makes the number of people on/. odd, and therefore, each group is strictly greater than half.
From what I can tell (roughly) at least half of/. is civil libertarian, and at least half of/. is against spam. Therefore, by pidgeonhole principal, at least one person on/. is a hypocrite.
You don't really believe that advertising will lead to reduced prices rather than increased profits, do you?
I believe that inflation is making things cost more money, and a company, in general, strives to keep optimal profits. That means that an increase in price, or the introduction of advertising, given the same conditions, would earn the company less money. It also means that, since such a thing is occurring, it indicates a change of conditions, and a revenue hike is inevitable. So yeah, if advertising wasn't an option for the company, a price rise would be their next best option, and so, the advertising helps prevent prices from rising.
It's a very, very slim margin. You would have to have enormously talented programmers to be able to restrict errors to "controlled errors" while programming in such an obfuscated way, and you'd have to be more talented than the people trying to debug your code. To hide the error effectively, obfuscating a small amount of code would make the error obvious, but obfuscating large swaths of code would make the code unmaintainable.
Even then, if you can view the source, you can usually make some kind of judgement call as to whether or not the code is deliberately obfuscated or not.
i guess its easier to shoot the messenger than deal with reality
all i see is bunch of denial in your words above.
You know why? Because that's your own denial talking. You are describing something you so desperately want to happen, and so really and truly looks like it's happening from your biased little position in the thick of it, that a bunch of logical, specific arguments why what you think is happening isn't happening look like just generic denial. It's what is known as "projection".
Now, I would be happy to let you remain deluded in normal circumstances, but in this case, these ravings you're spreading are not just a message, they are a rally call to do something monumentally stupid. Call it shooting the messenger, but when the message says "suicide bomb a brick wall", shooting the messenger seems like the most sensible option.
at some point in your future, maybe you will realize all i am doing is describing something that's already happening, not advocating for something ideologically that we should do.
Your intentions matter not in this case. There is power in your words, whether you realise it or not.
(Oh, and if you're not "advocating for something ideologically that we should do", how do you explain your signature?)
i need say no more. this whole thread is an act of intellectual charity on my part for someone who can't see what is happening.
I can see what's happening. As someone who, currently, benefits directly from neither piracy nor the RIAA, I have an extremely nice viewpoint. This is amplified by the fact that I used to pirate myself regularly until I realised the damage it was causing.
currently, you seem to be choosing obsolescence.
Oh, did I not mention that I'm not a distributing artist? The only benefits I get from copyright is from the rich culture I reap with my hard-earned money. Yet another reason why my vision of the current situation is extremely clear.
adios, luddite. welcome to the dustbin of history
Ciao, narrow-minded idiot. Let me know how asking artists to enslave themselves works out for ya.
I wouldn't want the news of my upcoming demise originating from the same site responsible for informing millions that Lance Armstrong woke up and is preparing a delicious sandwich.
So, if I told/emailed/SMSed/communicated via interpretive dance the same message, you wouldn't want your impending death to be announced by those media as well?
Oh come on. Did you even read my comment? I never claimed that was anybody's position, and I made it very clear that it was absurd. I was just trying to figure out how to enforce anonymity.
I suppose you also didn't read the second paragraph, where I point out that the "just don't interfere with it" approach is legally quite weak. For example, would requiring passports at airports be in violation of that right? Or requiring you to produce ID when applying for a drivers licence? Clearly there would be restrictions on "not interfering". However, I would expect you would object if, say, anonymity were to be relegated to (like I was saying in my previous post) specific times or specific places. For example, if it were banned in political debates.
Well, anonymity itself is a different discussion, but let's assume that it is a fundamental right. The right to anonymity does not imply that every possible forum of speech must have a provision for anonymity. It doesn't mean that the internet must have anonymity.
But, while writing this, I just had another thought. If anonymity were a right, how would it be expressed legally? As I said, you couldn't just make it legally mandatory to facilitate anonymity everywhere. It would be ineffective to ban laws that outlaw anonymity altogether, since you could easily get sinister effects like "free speech zones". How would you enforce the right to anonymity?
No, you're describing a series of choices made by people and spouting a bunch of crap about how the technology (which you barely touched on) somehow makes copyright obsolete. And by copyright, you mean labels, which still doesn't make your claims true. If your post was about the internet itself, and detailed information how it can be used to promote and distribute a work, and financially support an artist, with a similar effect to what the labels are doing now, then I would be interested and respectful.
I'm always interested in ways to make the labels obsolete, but the internet is not there yet. All it does is replicate one of the valuable services that the labels provide. You could argue that it's high time that we had labels which, to drive down overheads, that distribute online only. You could argue that, but it's actually happened already. I have no problem with this business model. I just have a problem when consumers, instead of constructively contributing to a competing business model, instead decide to destroy another business model for their own profit. That's not a technological change, that's unadulterated, hypocritical greed.
your current attitude towards me is as if i have personally introduced the compact disc, and i am now forcing people by personal fiat to stop using vinyl, because i said so. that i'm taking away the right of artists too choose vinyl. wtf?
Allow me to explain. You seem to have taken it upon yourself to be a standard-bearer for piracy, making up some bullshit about how the internet somehow obsoletes copyright law, and somehow it's therefore OK to ignore. It's not that you caused it; it's that you stand for it, encourage it, and I can only assume, are part of it yourself (either that, or you're a hypocrite), and it is this movement that is destroying choices for artists. So yeah, you are responsible.
the way you describe the situation is of course ridiculous. cds replaced vinyl because they're obviously better. that's all that is happening here: the internet is replacing labels and distributors. because it's BETTER. there is no function you can describe for a distributor or label that is not done by the internet now, for far cheaper if not completely free. thus: bye bye distributor and label
Promotion, distribution of CDs (for people who don't have access to large internet bandwidth caps), financial parachutes for artists, lowering the still large barrier of entry, handling business strategies/responsibilities, just to name a few things that the internet can't do that labels can. So remind me: how are labels obsolete?
labels and distributors are a dying breed. because of the internet. not because of some intrusive ideology from some guy you are arguing with on the internet. now deal with it
You don't seem to understand (how could you?) that this perception of obsolescence is the same thing as your ideology. A little thought and research about what labels actually do would reveal that the internet is laughably under-equipped to handle the majority of services required by artists from their labels. You also don't seem to understand that I have no attachment to the labels, and I have no problem with their demise, so long as artists and our culture aren't devastated by said demise. That's why I suggest people support constructive solutions, like Magnatune, so that we can actually institute some positive change, rather than just sitting on asses, claiming that labels are dead, all the while enjoying the fruits of their labour. The latter is extremely bad for our culture.
or continue yelling at me, as if i am the one driving this inevitable technological process. who needs adjusting to reality when you can just shoot the messenger, right? whatever
It is a sad state of our societies that child pornography can be invoked to justify absurd and highly unethical changes that would infringe of fundamental rights.
How is anonymity on the internet a "fundamental right"?
if you didn't want a flame response... you wouldn't call yourself the velvet flamebait
Right. Because what I want is dictated by a name I chose 7-8 years ago.
your problem is you fall for the contrived bullshit concept that distributors not making money anymore is the same as artists not making money anymore
Your problem is that you've fallen for contrived pirate lies, that copyright and labels are the same thing. You can still, as you pointed out, support artists while not supporting labels. The trick is convincing them not to sign with the labels.
but, don't believe me that distributors are a joke and artists should just go it out on their own, listen to an actual artist:
Right. Listen to one artist (of your selection) who made is name with (surprise, surprise) a label. This one guy who, thanks to the name and riches his label helped him accumulate, can choose any distribution method he likes, and make money off of it. Why don't, instead, we ask someone who's struggling to make a name for themselves with no recognition. Ask them whether they would prefer to sign a label, make peanuts, have a shot at fame, and at actually getting to Thom Yorke status, or try to make it big distributing with the flood of other crap on youtube or P2P networks.
so please stop swallowing the contrived lie that artists need distributors. its tired.
Well, if your strawman is so tired, why don't just burn him already?
its a dead fake maneuver you are either intellectually being dishonest about or are actually quite cluelessly naive about
Pot, meet strawman.
the truth is, distributors are parasites that only existed because someone had to manufacture the media
The full truth is that distributors performed (and still perform) far more than just handing out blank CDs. They basically take care of the business side of things. They make sure the artist is still successful, and they have a vested interest in doing that job well. They lower the barrier of entry, and take on time-consuming and mundane jobs. They make the whole process easier, and provide something resembling a financial safety net. Many small things that could easily bankrupt a lone artist could also be weathered by a big corporation.
That's their good side. We've seen ample evidence of their bad sides here on slashdot in the past. I'm not suggesting that they're the best thing since sliced bread, only that, if you're willing endure their crap, they do provide a valuable service, made all the more valuable if you're as poor as 99% of artists out there.
I would like to finish with one very important point, similar, but crucially different to the position you assumed I was taking. If we destroy labels, then this is, unequivocally, bad for the artists. All it does is remove their choice between labels and indie. It doesn't improve the indie choice; it's still the same road of struggle and hardship. All you're doing is, essentially, choosing for them. If an artist wants to choose this road, they will choose this road without your coercion. How can you possibly claim that destroying their freedom to choose is in their interests?
(This was the point, which you apparently missed, from my previous post, after you dragged the discussion predictably towards everybody's favourite scapegoats: the labels)
It's not society's problem that you can't make a living doing whatever you want.
Then, by the same token, it's not society's problem if nobody wants to provide you with whatever you want. Such as, for example, recorded music. Or, to our vast mutual benefit, we could make it our problem, and work out something where artists don't live, work, and feel like they're slaves for your entertainment, and you get choices in entertainment that are better slightly in quality, and better astronomically in quantity.
Your rant on artists rising up and "taking control" is also hilarious since there isn't a damn thing that they can do about it.
Your laughing at other peoples misfortunes is very revealing. Tell me, what kind of freedom is it, where you have no negotiation power about the work you do. Sure, they could just all quit, and everyone will be sorry, but that's hardly the point. They want to do that job. Other people want them to do that job as well. I don't see why we are so cold towards them.
They could all disappear tommorrow and there'd be plenty of people to take their place.
What if there isn't? Plenty of people sure, but perhaps not everyone willing to endure a life of forced hardship and thinly-veiled contempt. They would probably be happier just forming a band with friends and just playing for themselves, not actually going to the thankless chore of recording and distributing, or quitting their day job and touring. The allure of stardom will fade really, really quickly once the stars are ridiculed and forced off stage, and then music will seem like a big waste of time and energy. Welcome to the musical dark age.
Slashdot Mirror
Congrats! You just got First and Second Post!
I think it was more of a semantics fail. Besides, there are an odd number of /. users. This guy is number 1074535, and he is, as of this post, the latest person to register for /. This makes the number of people on /. odd, and therefore, each group is strictly greater than half.
From what I can tell (roughly) at least half of /. is civil libertarian, and at least half of /. is against spam. Therefore, by pidgeonhole principal, at least one person on /. is a hypocrite.
(OK, that was a complete and utter troll.)
ITOOCANWRITEINALLCAPS!
How? How do you know that isn't part of your paranoia?
The right way? Some of us are ill-equipped!
The rest of us shouldn't really be equipped, but we are anyway. :-/
I believe that inflation is making things cost more money, and a company, in general, strives to keep optimal profits. That means that an increase in price, or the introduction of advertising, given the same conditions, would earn the company less money. It also means that, since such a thing is occurring, it indicates a change of conditions, and a revenue hike is inevitable. So yeah, if advertising wasn't an option for the company, a price rise would be their next best option, and so, the advertising helps prevent prices from rising.
What if advertising makes the price cheaper? Is that still double dipping at the customers expense?
What makes you think that it's full price?
This is one of the most original comments I have ever seen. *rolls eyes*
No, but they might sue in 5.
Cheers. Thanks for putting it in the subject bar, where no-one can block it. ;-)
Down here, she's a new ranga overlord.
OK, but how do they deal with the problem of the code looking obfuscated? I mean, there's no point to code nobody will use, right?
It's a very, very slim margin. You would have to have enormously talented programmers to be able to restrict errors to "controlled errors" while programming in such an obfuscated way, and you'd have to be more talented than the people trying to debug your code. To hide the error effectively, obfuscating a small amount of code would make the error obvious, but obfuscating large swaths of code would make the code unmaintainable.
Even then, if you can view the source, you can usually make some kind of judgement call as to whether or not the code is deliberately obfuscated or not.
You know why? Because that's your own denial talking. You are describing something you so desperately want to happen, and so really and truly looks like it's happening from your biased little position in the thick of it, that a bunch of logical, specific arguments why what you think is happening isn't happening look like just generic denial. It's what is known as "projection".
Now, I would be happy to let you remain deluded in normal circumstances, but in this case, these ravings you're spreading are not just a message, they are a rally call to do something monumentally stupid. Call it shooting the messenger, but when the message says "suicide bomb a brick wall", shooting the messenger seems like the most sensible option.
Your intentions matter not in this case. There is power in your words, whether you realise it or not.
(Oh, and if you're not "advocating for something ideologically that we should do", how do you explain your signature?)
I can see what's happening. As someone who, currently, benefits directly from neither piracy nor the RIAA, I have an extremely nice viewpoint. This is amplified by the fact that I used to pirate myself regularly until I realised the damage it was causing.
Oh, did I not mention that I'm not a distributing artist? The only benefits I get from copyright is from the rich culture I reap with my hard-earned money. Yet another reason why my vision of the current situation is extremely clear.
Ciao, narrow-minded idiot. Let me know how asking artists to enslave themselves works out for ya.
Yeah... I think I'm going to go ahead and blame apple anyway.
No, that'll never happen. Using mobiles while driving is illegal, don't you know.
So, if I told/emailed/SMSed/communicated via interpretive dance the same message, you wouldn't want your impending death to be announced by those media as well?
Oh come on. Did you even read my comment? I never claimed that was anybody's position, and I made it very clear that it was absurd. I was just trying to figure out how to enforce anonymity.
I suppose you also didn't read the second paragraph, where I point out that the "just don't interfere with it" approach is legally quite weak. For example, would requiring passports at airports be in violation of that right? Or requiring you to produce ID when applying for a drivers licence? Clearly there would be restrictions on "not interfering". However, I would expect you would object if, say, anonymity were to be relegated to (like I was saying in my previous post) specific times or specific places. For example, if it were banned in political debates.
Well, anonymity itself is a different discussion, but let's assume that it is a fundamental right. The right to anonymity does not imply that every possible forum of speech must have a provision for anonymity. It doesn't mean that the internet must have anonymity.
But, while writing this, I just had another thought. If anonymity were a right, how would it be expressed legally? As I said, you couldn't just make it legally mandatory to facilitate anonymity everywhere. It would be ineffective to ban laws that outlaw anonymity altogether, since you could easily get sinister effects like "free speech zones". How would you enforce the right to anonymity?
No, you're describing a series of choices made by people and spouting a bunch of crap about how the technology (which you barely touched on) somehow makes copyright obsolete. And by copyright, you mean labels, which still doesn't make your claims true. If your post was about the internet itself, and detailed information how it can be used to promote and distribute a work, and financially support an artist, with a similar effect to what the labels are doing now, then I would be interested and respectful.
I'm always interested in ways to make the labels obsolete, but the internet is not there yet. All it does is replicate one of the valuable services that the labels provide. You could argue that it's high time that we had labels which, to drive down overheads, that distribute online only. You could argue that, but it's actually happened already. I have no problem with this business model. I just have a problem when consumers, instead of constructively contributing to a competing business model, instead decide to destroy another business model for their own profit. That's not a technological change, that's unadulterated, hypocritical greed.
Allow me to explain. You seem to have taken it upon yourself to be a standard-bearer for piracy, making up some bullshit about how the internet somehow obsoletes copyright law, and somehow it's therefore OK to ignore. It's not that you caused it; it's that you stand for it, encourage it, and I can only assume, are part of it yourself (either that, or you're a hypocrite), and it is this movement that is destroying choices for artists. So yeah, you are responsible.
Promotion, distribution of CDs (for people who don't have access to large internet bandwidth caps), financial parachutes for artists, lowering the still large barrier of entry, handling business strategies/responsibilities, just to name a few things that the internet can't do that labels can. So remind me: how are labels obsolete?
You don't seem to understand (how could you?) that this perception of obsolescence is the same thing as your ideology. A little thought and research about what labels actually do would reveal that the internet is laughably under-equipped to handle the majority of services required by artists from their labels. You also don't seem to understand that I have no attachment to the labels, and I have no problem with their demise, so long as artists and our culture aren't devastated by said demise. That's why I suggest people support constructive solutions, like Magnatune, so that we can actually institute some positive change, rather than just sitting on asses, claiming that labels are dead, all the while enjoying the fruits of their labour. The latter is extremely bad for our culture.
OK. Consider for
How is anonymity on the internet a "fundamental right"?
Right. Because what I want is dictated by a name I chose 7-8 years ago.
Your problem is that you've fallen for contrived pirate lies, that copyright and labels are the same thing. You can still, as you pointed out, support artists while not supporting labels. The trick is convincing them not to sign with the labels.
Right. Listen to one artist (of your selection) who made is name with (surprise, surprise) a label. This one guy who, thanks to the name and riches his label helped him accumulate, can choose any distribution method he likes, and make money off of it. Why don't, instead, we ask someone who's struggling to make a name for themselves with no recognition. Ask them whether they would prefer to sign a label, make peanuts, have a shot at fame, and at actually getting to Thom Yorke status, or try to make it big distributing with the flood of other crap on youtube or P2P networks.
Well, if your strawman is so tired, why don't just burn him already?
Pot, meet strawman.
The full truth is that distributors performed (and still perform) far more than just handing out blank CDs. They basically take care of the business side of things. They make sure the artist is still successful, and they have a vested interest in doing that job well. They lower the barrier of entry, and take on time-consuming and mundane jobs. They make the whole process easier, and provide something resembling a financial safety net. Many small things that could easily bankrupt a lone artist could also be weathered by a big corporation.
That's their good side. We've seen ample evidence of their bad sides here on slashdot in the past. I'm not suggesting that they're the best thing since sliced bread, only that, if you're willing endure their crap, they do provide a valuable service, made all the more valuable if you're as poor as 99% of artists out there.
I would like to finish with one very important point, similar, but crucially different to the position you assumed I was taking. If we destroy labels, then this is, unequivocally, bad for the artists. All it does is remove their choice between labels and indie. It doesn't improve the indie choice; it's still the same road of struggle and hardship. All you're doing is, essentially, choosing for them. If an artist wants to choose this road, they will choose this road without your coercion. How can you possibly claim that destroying their freedom to choose is in their interests?
(This was the point, which you apparently missed, from my previous post, after you dragged the discussion predictably towards everybody's favourite scapegoats: the labels)
Then, by the same token, it's not society's problem if nobody wants to provide you with whatever you want. Such as, for example, recorded music. Or, to our vast mutual benefit, we could make it our problem, and work out something where artists don't live, work, and feel like they're slaves for your entertainment, and you get choices in entertainment that are better slightly in quality, and better astronomically in quantity.
Your laughing at other peoples misfortunes is very revealing. Tell me, what kind of freedom is it, where you have no negotiation power about the work you do. Sure, they could just all quit, and everyone will be sorry, but that's hardly the point. They want to do that job. Other people want them to do that job as well. I don't see why we are so cold towards them.
What if there isn't? Plenty of people sure, but perhaps not everyone willing to endure a life of forced hardship and thinly-veiled contempt. They would probably be happier just forming a band with friends and just playing for themselves, not actually going to the thankless chore of recording and distributing, or quitting their day job and touring. The allure of stardom will fade really, really quickly once the stars are ridiculed and forced off stage, and then music will seem like a big waste of time and energy. Welcome to the musical dark age.