It is the most basic of rights to be able to use what you pay for.
Let's ignore the glaring falsity of that statement for a second. "What you pay for" is entirely based upon what is offered by who you're paying. Sure, perhaps some competition would be nice, but let's be clear: if such a proposal were to go through, you would be paying for a power service with limitations on usages for A/C. You would be getting exactly what you paid for. If they were to advertise something different, then yes, you would not be getting what you paid for, but this is not the case.
I think you're missing my point. It's not so easy to call a religion "violent", let alone equating their violence based on one parameter. I mean, I don't see why a polytheistic religion would be any less inclined to claim knowledge of all gods than a monotheistic religion.
I'm not even convinced that Christianity is that violent. The kooks are always the ones who get the most publicity, but there really are a shitload of Christians. It really is only an insignificant proportion that are violent. A proportion that, most likely, wouldn't be out of proportion with the population in total.
Those were the days. None of this "persistent internet connection" crap. The only DRM they needed was a "persistent presence in a public place". So much less restrictive.
Christianity is no more or less violent than any other religion.
This rings false to me. It seems you're implying that the violence level of "any other religion" is well-defined, as in, every other religion is more or less as violent as each other. I've never seen, for example, militant Buddhists. Well, perhaps a Buddhist (or someone claiming to be one) who is militant about something else, but no-one who spreads Buddhism by force.
No, but at the same time, you don't hear the parent crying himself to sleep either.
That's the idea of boycotting in capitalism; not to punish companies, but to consciously refuse to compromise your principles, resulting in you getting only what you truly want.
It makes little sense to classify a company as evil or !evil over an extended period of time. They are a company, run by an often-changing group of people. They have no sentimental ties to their previous behaviour, and as such, they can turn on a dime. Microsoft releasing mw4 today doesn't mean they won't sue Linux contributors for patent infringement the next (I know, bad example).
Well, for a start, this isn't my business model. I don't have a business model. But, nonetheless, even though I'm purely from the consumer end of the internet, I can still see the hypocrisy of claiming a business model is flawed, while still using and relying upon its fruits.
Perhaps it is flawed, but that doesn't mean there's anything better.
there is no need for distributors any more, so lets remove that red herring
Did I say distributors anywhere? How about we remove that strawman first?
then they make money off of ancillary means: concert gigs, advertising and promo, personalized content, etc
Sooner or later, they start to realise that it's the ancillary means that are keeping them afloat, and this "recording" business is really just detracting from their concert sales. What makes you think they'll still record? Advertising is all well and good, but you're not supposed to give away all your product to everyone; that would just be moronic.
unbridled sharing is a cultural ferment which maximizes cultural production in quantity and quality
What unmitigated crap! I don't need to tell you all the arguments in favour of intellectual property. There's significant evidence and logic indicating that unbridled sharing is extremely detrimental to cultural growth, when compared with limiting sharing. Removing boundaries to sharing only works if you have something to share!
your problem is you think that money has to be made for culture to be made
And your problem is that you keep trying to stuff words in my mouth. What I see is that creating anything is much, much, much more than motivation. I mean, if motivation was all it took to accomplish something, I would have developed human teleportation by now. In the real world, motivation is only one small part of making something happen. You actually need the means to make something happen.
I may have a beautiful melody in my head, but that doesn't provide me with two guitars, a bass, a drumkit, a microphone or two, a studio, recording equipment, and people to operate them. No, I actually have to work for those, and pay for those. And even when they're bought, people are just going to download the recordings for free, and I'm expected to cough up the cash to go on tour, which will only be successful when I become an overnight star of unprecedented proportions (when comparing to others who have tried to launch their careers over the internet).
Wake up! There's no such thing as a free lunch. As it turns out, pushing the costs onto the artists doesn't work so great either.
I view it the same as the cable company deciding that I shouldn't be able to skip ads on my PVR. Just because you charged the advertiser to sell the ad, doesn't mean that confers any obligation on me to watch it.
Not quite. The cable company accepts that you can change the channel or turn off the TV (well, they don't really have a choice). At least there's some effort on your part to be put in, and for enough people, the effort of changing channel and watching the time until the program resumes is as bad or worse than the ads. They would object to an always-on-by-default silent automatic ad-blocking machine. That would quite literally ruin their business model.
OK, maybe not cable, but certainly free-to-air. If such a device hit the market and was effective well, FTA would be essentially finished.
Give the courts some credit. They've had plenty of practice ignoring arguments that rest solely upon taking well-defined terms and blowing them out of proportion.
Ah, but they have their own permission to cause the imminent infringement of their own copyright!
Seriously though, the courts aren't that stupid. The words themselves aren't the law, but the well-established meanings behind them. So, taking a word like "imminent" and hyperbolically extending it to mean "probable; sometime in the next century or two" does not alone mean the law is ripe for abuse. The courts can tell the difference between between two vastly different applications of the word "imminent".
1. Create any work (it's automatically copyrighted) 2. Sue EVERYONE for imminent infringement 3. Judge wonders what kind of proof you'd have of imminent infringement by everybody 4. Judge further considers the kind of damages you'd be entitled to for a work that's not being sold anywhere, that nobody has heard about, and of which only you have access to a copy 5. ???? 6. Profit!
Slashdot Mirror
No, I believe the parent was talking about causality. That is, had the neighbours not been falsely accused, their home would not have been vandalised.
On the inner or outer faces of the walls? It's a crucial distinction.
Let's ignore the glaring falsity of that statement for a second. "What you pay for" is entirely based upon what is offered by who you're paying. Sure, perhaps some competition would be nice, but let's be clear: if such a proposal were to go through, you would be paying for a power service with limitations on usages for A/C. You would be getting exactly what you paid for. If they were to advertise something different, then yes, you would not be getting what you paid for, but this is not the case.
My claims? That I've never personally seen militant Buddhists?
Wow, they must really be militant! ;-)
I think you're missing my point. It's not so easy to call a religion "violent", let alone equating their violence based on one parameter. I mean, I don't see why a polytheistic religion would be any less inclined to claim knowledge of all gods than a monotheistic religion.
I'm not even convinced that Christianity is that violent. The kooks are always the ones who get the most publicity, but there really are a shitload of Christians. It really is only an insignificant proportion that are violent. A proportion that, most likely, wouldn't be out of proportion with the population in total.
What, no Cowboy Neal option?
Those were the days. None of this "persistent internet connection" crap. The only DRM they needed was a "persistent presence in a public place". So much less restrictive.
Mods, please cut the parent some slack. It's not his fault. Tiny minds have no other way of resolving complex issues.
No, you get your money, and you are free to use it in other ways.
This rings false to me. It seems you're implying that the violence level of "any other religion" is well-defined, as in, every other religion is more or less as violent as each other. I've never seen, for example, militant Buddhists. Well, perhaps a Buddhist (or someone claiming to be one) who is militant about something else, but no-one who spreads Buddhism by force.
No, but at the same time, you don't hear the parent crying himself to sleep either.
That's the idea of boycotting in capitalism; not to punish companies, but to consciously refuse to compromise your principles, resulting in you getting only what you truly want.
Dammit! Slashdot's done gone and stripped mah binary relations! Those awkward spaces between numbers? Suppose to be "less than" symbols.
No, 70 x 2 136. We know that:
70 = 69.9999...
2 = 1.9999...
So, putting it in my calculator, just multiply:
69.9 * 1.9 = 132.81 136
QED
I agree, but the moment I admit so, I instantly become evil in their eyes, and they stop listening. ;-)
Slashdotters don't usually publicly admit their sex lives depend on Cox.
It makes little sense to classify a company as evil or !evil over an extended period of time. They are a company, run by an often-changing group of people. They have no sentimental ties to their previous behaviour, and as such, they can turn on a dime. Microsoft releasing mw4 today doesn't mean they won't sue Linux contributors for patent infringement the next (I know, bad example).
Uhuh. And nobody ever maintained a discussion with three consecutive posts filled with sarcasm.
No, but trolling a troll is still trolling.
As my Ma always told me, two trolls don't make an insightful.
Well, for a start, this isn't my business model. I don't have a business model. But, nonetheless, even though I'm purely from the consumer end of the internet, I can still see the hypocrisy of claiming a business model is flawed, while still using and relying upon its fruits.
Perhaps it is flawed, but that doesn't mean there's anything better.
Did I say distributors anywhere? How about we remove that strawman first?
Sooner or later, they start to realise that it's the ancillary means that are keeping them afloat, and this "recording" business is really just detracting from their concert sales. What makes you think they'll still record? Advertising is all well and good, but you're not supposed to give away all your product to everyone; that would just be moronic.
What unmitigated crap! I don't need to tell you all the arguments in favour of intellectual property. There's significant evidence and logic indicating that unbridled sharing is extremely detrimental to cultural growth, when compared with limiting sharing. Removing boundaries to sharing only works if you have something to share!
And your problem is that you keep trying to stuff words in my mouth. What I see is that creating anything is much, much, much more than motivation. I mean, if motivation was all it took to accomplish something, I would have developed human teleportation by now. In the real world, motivation is only one small part of making something happen. You actually need the means to make something happen.
I may have a beautiful melody in my head, but that doesn't provide me with two guitars, a bass, a drumkit, a microphone or two, a studio, recording equipment, and people to operate them. No, I actually have to work for those, and pay for those. And even when they're bought, people are just going to download the recordings for free, and I'm expected to cough up the cash to go on tour, which will only be successful when I become an overnight star of unprecedented proportions (when comparing to others who have tried to launch their careers over the internet).
Wake up! There's no such thing as a free lunch. As it turns out, pushing the costs onto the artists doesn't work so great either.
Not quite. The cable company accepts that you can change the channel or turn off the TV (well, they don't really have a choice). At least there's some effort on your part to be put in, and for enough people, the effort of changing channel and watching the time until the program resumes is as bad or worse than the ads. They would object to an always-on-by-default silent automatic ad-blocking machine. That would quite literally ruin their business model.
OK, maybe not cable, but certainly free-to-air. If such a device hit the market and was effective well, FTA would be essentially finished.
It's not a flaw. My argument doesn't rely on few people using ad-blocking software.
The internet on the other hand...
No. Really, no.
Give the courts some credit. They've had plenty of practice ignoring arguments that rest solely upon taking well-defined terms and blowing them out of proportion.
Ah, but they have their own permission to cause the imminent infringement of their own copyright!
Seriously though, the courts aren't that stupid. The words themselves aren't the law, but the well-established meanings behind them. So, taking a word like "imminent" and hyperbolically extending it to mean "probable; sometime in the next century or two" does not alone mean the law is ripe for abuse. The courts can tell the difference between between two vastly different applications of the word "imminent".
1. Create any work (it's automatically copyrighted)
2. Sue EVERYONE for imminent infringement
3. Judge wonders what kind of proof you'd have of imminent infringement by everybody
4. Judge further considers the kind of damages you'd be entitled to for a work that's not being sold anywhere, that nobody has heard about, and of which only you have access to a copy
5. ????
6. Profit!