People don't like to accept that fact that it is their own fault for how their kids grow up.
Libertarians like to think this "fact" is true, since it fits in neatly in their world view. Why have censorship, when we can blame everything on the parents? It's certainly better than admitting even the slightest positive effect of censorship in certain situations. It's also convenient to defend because, no matter how well a parent can parent, there will always be some way that, in hindsight, their parenting could be improved.
It's one of those facts of life that kids get out and about, and there will be (many) facets of a child's life that a parent can neither monitor nor control. Of course, this is the parent's fault, for not trying hard enough to be involved in the kid's life. Or, if the kid is rebelling against the parent's overbearing nature, then it's the parent's fault for overdoing it.
Now, there's no excuse to ban a game, when you can just relegate it to adults, but this scapegoating of parents really sickens me. If a legitimate cause for censorship upsets your ideal world, well, that's too fucking bad.
One would hope that he doesn't have a collection of movies (or anything else copyrighted) downloaded via bittorrent, since it would:
a) Significantly increase the likelihood that he will be charged and convicted, b) Increase the damages awarded if charged and convicted, and, worst of all, c) Completely fuck up the test by introducing an extra factor into the court's decision
Perhaps I'm misreading you, but I think you're making the argument that the downloads don't correspond to lost sales, since it was because of the downloads that the downloads occurred, right? And thus without the downloads, the games are no more likely to be sold officially, right?
Wrong. It's the combination of demand and a marketing vehicle (in this case, the downloads) that fuelled the downloads. It doesn't really matter what the marketing vehicle is; just so long as it reminds people of the game.
Nintendo can market their own products, as I said. If the demand is there, Nintendo will make them sell, as is their prerogative.
If pirates get there first, then the demand disappears.
You know what? I think Nintendo doesn't require pirates to handle their marketing. I'm pretty sure they can make good games popular without people ripping them off.
Does it weaken Goetz's argument that his description of the software lifecycle harks back to the waterfall days and bears little resemblance to current development practice in open source and/or Internet contexts?
Uh, nope... sorry. Phrasing this as a question doesn't even give the appearance of a NPOV.
Nintendo are selling some of the more popular titles via Wii shop (and some DS shop?). Of course, they are not at all obliged to do this to keep their copyrights; they're free to cash in from their work whenever they like.
In fact, it's very possible that there would be more classic titles on sale if less people were downloading them beforehand. Some games, thanks to their demand drying up, might no longer have the demand necessary for Nintendo to be bothered making them available.
To clamp down on Slashdotters' right to speech. (And I don't care if it's not written in stone for the moderators, it's a basic human right as far as I'm concerned. The 'trolls' will just get around this road block too, they always do, and the moderators know this.
Basically, mod parent up, even though he conflated privacy with cell phones (the excuse, get it?).
No, that's pretty much it. There was only one thing I wanted to elaborate on:
Boycotting is the way to do it, pirating is not. However, boycotting needs to be whipped into shape as an effective tool otherwise it is also not the way to do it.
Boycotting isn't the problem, so much as the motivation behind it. In order for boycotting to become effective, people need to be discontent. Right now, the many people who would be discontent if the law were enforced properly are turning to piracy. If they turned to the less comfortable option of boycotting instead, we might see some real change.
Otherwise, I think we're pretty much on the same page.
Sorry I was such a jerk. You really do do the adversarial bit well!
Censoring racism will force it underground and thus strengthen it.
Say what? Racism is already forced underground by taboo, and it's a good thing too, because forcing it underground weakens it. Sure it festers in certain minds, but at least it doesn't spread nearly so quickly.
It's not that I disagree with the rest of your post, it's just that you could make a perfectly good argument without having to clumsily try to disprove every positive aspect of the opposing viewpoint.
For all the logistical support labels provide as a general group they collude to keep prices high while lobbying incrementally to continually tip the scales a bit more in their favor. This is contrary to Mr. Smith's invisible hand. Overall it creates inefficiencies and this hidden cost is ultimately passed on to the purchaser.
No, it's actually quite the opposite. With law passed in their favour, the risk to create each work is reduced, and it gives copyright holders the confidence to lower their prices. That's bad, however, is that it means we have to wait longer than our lifetimes to see content become freely available. So, yeah, it's pretty bad for a number of reasons, but financial efficiency isn't one of them.
It is not free market
Hold on here. It's a perfectly free market, even accounting for their lobbying. Each law that passes puts each copyright holder in more or less the same boat. A boon for them is a boon for their competition. The one exception to this is the blank media tax, but, realistically, it's not making much of a negative impact on the competition's chances at a sale.
it does not promote innovation, they are self-serving
Ha! The same goes for piracy and pirates!
No but, seriously, we are agreed: Big Media lobbying government is bad. Actually, we can extend this a bit: Big Business lobbying government is bad. Perhaps there's a problem here beyond discussions of the **AA and copyright?
First, fix our legal system. Then, fix copyright.
... and when they are dismantled whatever rises to replace them will be better at least because it will be young and lean.
Yeah, I'm not sure if that necessarily equates to "better". Young could mean "young and aggressive". Basically, I don't share the optimism that arbitrarily tearing down companies we don't like produces change for the better.
Companies are a product of us. They only grow as bad as we let them (because without us, they can't grow). There's clearly a complacency in people about how their companies behave, and I think that that's what needs to be addressed first.
Otherwise, we can tear down companies until our arms get sore, and other almost identical companies will spring up in its place. The companies just follow the optimal money-making strategy, and tearing down companies doesn't really change this strategy. It's the strategy that's problem; the companies are just arbitrary.
Just because they are established does not mean they deserve status quo.
Sure, but I would like you to notice that nowhere have I made an argument based on what they deserve. Well, at least I haven't made an argument based on anything positive they deserve.
I have made some arbitrary criteria, if you agree we will apply it
Formal rules. I like it. (Only, it took me a while to realise exactly what they were being applied to.)
Each party can permit themselves bias, but prejudice is forbidden.
Well, this one may be a problem for me. You may have noticed that many of my earlier arguments had certain statements about pirates as a group (such as, they're greedy and entitled). In fairness, they probably are prejudices, but also in fairness, they're not without their bases in fact.
But, I suppose that I can give up the prejudicial arguments if you can. But that is a real problem: can you? Some of the policy that you're proposing is definite prejudice against Big Media, which isn't just a single corporation, but in fact, a large group of corporations. When you say they should be destroyed, are you considering each company individually, or are you just making a prejudiced over-generalisation (like me on pirates)?
A party is considered right as defined by the other being unable to refute the logic and val
Let them decide for themselves what's right for their district and what isn't because no two school districts are alike, and what works for one fails for another.
OK, I get it. You're not going to tell me the advantages of piracy over boycotting, simply because you know, deep down, that they're all selfish. Whatever, you know now, you won't stop, probably because, like so many other pirates, you're addicted to the free entertainment. You still, however, have a point about the copyright system that I'm not averse to discussing, and ending the discussion on this note would be a cop-out.
I am hurting an artist right now by liberating content. This is to create pressure to imbalance the stranglehold current de-facto cartels have on the market. Once the parasitic conditions of the current copyright imbalance are corrected and a reasonable term is set before a work becomes public domain it will free up a well of creativity for a whole new generation. They will actually be able to draw from the rich mosaic to express themselves with glory. Once fair terms are recognized in copyright an actual deal that is not my take all that you can eat approach can be established.
You're conflating several concepts here. First we have publishers, next we have public domain, and lastly, we have respect from artists. You seem to be under this weird delusion that blindly changing one thing will result in an improvement in all categories.
In fact, you still haven't actually convinced me that publishers are inherent problems. I still can't fathom why you consider them thieves, bloodsuckers, or whatever else you decide to call them, when the arrangement is mutually arranged, and often, mutually beneficial. I mean, do you call your greengrocer a thief just because he accepts your money in exchange for food? Would I be allowed to "liberate" your food, admittedly hurting you, but drawing attention to the cause of evil greengrocers? It's completely ridiculous!
As for the public domain, while I agree that healthy public domain is conducive to a healthy culture, and right now, we definitely do not have a healthy public domain, we must be very careful about extending too much. I mean, right now, we can still access copyrighted works, for pay if necessary, from which to draw inspiration. It's not like artists aren't prepared to spend a little for inspiration and enjoyment. There isn't a group of artists twiddling their thumbs, waiting for inspiration to drop into public domain. There's still a huge well of inspiration out there.
Plus, every extension of the public domain has an inevitable sting in the tail. Every extension requires a weakening of copyright, and every weakening of copyright drops the artists in the bottom percentiles. Of course, this can be completely worthwhile, and I do think that we should shorten copyright term lengths. However, I make no illusion about the fact that there will be a price to pay in terms of variety.
As for the issue of respect, you have to remember that you can't force artists to be your friend using legal methods. If you want your artists to treat you as partners, then just buy from artists who treat you as partners.
Once fair terms are recognized in copyright an actual deal that is not my take all that you can eat approach can be established. You can look someone straight in the eye and say this old and nothing newer. And they will look you straight back and say yes I agree, thats fair.
I think you're missing some grammar. I'm having some trouble parsing this statement. However, I don't think it matters:
A few will infringe but it will be much easier to educate the majority when they can feel it intuitively in their gut that they are being treated as partners instead of consumers.
Ha! This is the entitlement generation! The generation that will pirate iPhone apps, the generation that will pirate a game simply because it doesn't come with a dedicated server service, the generation that will pirate simply because it makes a convenient soapbox to preach from. This is a generation raised on the morality of
I don't know about all the other suckers out there, but I'd pay more for the iPhone. Hey, at least I can use it, and it's fun, and it can't be replaced by something worth $10.
Slashdot Mirror
That is, until he's shown not have taken due diligence, at which point he is fired, disgraced, and liable for millions in damages.
"I never thought she was a child, honest! I thought she was an FBI agent!"
Ah you young'uns. I'm going upstairs to get my imagination out of the attic!
(Yes, that's the best I could do)
Libertarians like to think this "fact" is true, since it fits in neatly in their world view. Why have censorship, when we can blame everything on the parents? It's certainly better than admitting even the slightest positive effect of censorship in certain situations. It's also convenient to defend because, no matter how well a parent can parent, there will always be some way that, in hindsight, their parenting could be improved.
It's one of those facts of life that kids get out and about, and there will be (many) facets of a child's life that a parent can neither monitor nor control. Of course, this is the parent's fault, for not trying hard enough to be involved in the kid's life. Or, if the kid is rebelling against the parent's overbearing nature, then it's the parent's fault for overdoing it.
Now, there's no excuse to ban a game, when you can just relegate it to adults, but this scapegoating of parents really sickens me. If a legitimate cause for censorship upsets your ideal world, well, that's too fucking bad.
Two or more amputees in an online masturbation ring?
I've just had a really neat idea for a porno site!
... the honest, hard-working pirates of Australia (and maybe the world) will dutifully punish them for not properly distributing their game.
Hey! I tried to say that first, but my damn screen wasn't recognising my taps!
One would hope that he doesn't have a collection of movies (or anything else copyrighted) downloaded via bittorrent, since it would:
a) Significantly increase the likelihood that he will be charged and convicted,
b) Increase the damages awarded if charged and convicted, and, worst of all,
c) Completely fuck up the test by introducing an extra factor into the court's decision
Because they are wrong, and their spouting of bullshit is unacceptable!
...
Hmm. Let's see what's on TV. Oh, eating nutragrain turns me into an iron man? Awesome! I gotta get me some of that!
Perhaps I'm misreading you, but I think you're making the argument that the downloads don't correspond to lost sales, since it was because of the downloads that the downloads occurred, right? And thus without the downloads, the games are no more likely to be sold officially, right?
Wrong. It's the combination of demand and a marketing vehicle (in this case, the downloads) that fuelled the downloads. It doesn't really matter what the marketing vehicle is; just so long as it reminds people of the game.
Nintendo can market their own products, as I said. If the demand is there, Nintendo will make them sell, as is their prerogative.
If pirates get there first, then the demand disappears.
Oh OK. But then, why ask? Why not just tell? Why the oh-so-unsubtle attempt at subtlety?
Perhaps he's ashamed to be contributing to what is essentially an online tabloid?
(Yeah, yeah, mod me down. I'm used to it.)
You know what? I think Nintendo doesn't require pirates to handle their marketing. I'm pretty sure they can make good games popular without people ripping them off.
Uh, nope... sorry. Phrasing this as a question doesn't even give the appearance of a NPOV.
Nintendo are selling some of the more popular titles via Wii shop (and some DS shop?). Of course, they are not at all obliged to do this to keep their copyrights; they're free to cash in from their work whenever they like.
In fact, it's very possible that there would be more classic titles on sale if less people were downloading them beforehand. Some games, thanks to their demand drying up, might no longer have the demand necessary for Nintendo to be bothered making them available.
To clamp down on Slashdotters' right to speech. (And I don't care if it's not written in stone for the moderators, it's a basic human right as far as I'm concerned. The 'trolls' will just get around this road block too, they always do, and the moderators know this.
Basically, mod parent up, even though he conflated privacy with cell phones (the excuse, get it?).
No, that's pretty much it. There was only one thing I wanted to elaborate on:
Boycotting isn't the problem, so much as the motivation behind it. In order for boycotting to become effective, people need to be discontent. Right now, the many people who would be discontent if the law were enforced properly are turning to piracy. If they turned to the less comfortable option of boycotting instead, we might see some real change.
Otherwise, I think we're pretty much on the same page.
Sorry I was such a jerk. You really do do the adversarial bit well!
Say what? Racism is already forced underground by taboo, and it's a good thing too, because forcing it underground weakens it. Sure it festers in certain minds, but at least it doesn't spread nearly so quickly.
It's not that I disagree with the rest of your post, it's just that you could make a perfectly good argument without having to clumsily try to disprove every positive aspect of the opposing viewpoint.
Really? You've been working at Microsoft for that long?
We do. It's called -1 Troll.
No, it's actually quite the opposite. With law passed in their favour, the risk to create each work is reduced, and it gives copyright holders the confidence to lower their prices. That's bad, however, is that it means we have to wait longer than our lifetimes to see content become freely available. So, yeah, it's pretty bad for a number of reasons, but financial efficiency isn't one of them.
Hold on here. It's a perfectly free market, even accounting for their lobbying. Each law that passes puts each copyright holder in more or less the same boat. A boon for them is a boon for their competition. The one exception to this is the blank media tax, but, realistically, it's not making much of a negative impact on the competition's chances at a sale.
Ha! The same goes for piracy and pirates!
No but, seriously, we are agreed: Big Media lobbying government is bad. Actually, we can extend this a bit: Big Business lobbying government is bad. Perhaps there's a problem here beyond discussions of the **AA and copyright?
First, fix our legal system. Then, fix copyright.
Yeah, I'm not sure if that necessarily equates to "better". Young could mean "young and aggressive". Basically, I don't share the optimism that arbitrarily tearing down companies we don't like produces change for the better.
Companies are a product of us. They only grow as bad as we let them (because without us, they can't grow). There's clearly a complacency in people about how their companies behave, and I think that that's what needs to be addressed first.
Otherwise, we can tear down companies until our arms get sore, and other almost identical companies will spring up in its place. The companies just follow the optimal money-making strategy, and tearing down companies doesn't really change this strategy. It's the strategy that's problem; the companies are just arbitrary.
Sure, but I would like you to notice that nowhere have I made an argument based on what they deserve. Well, at least I haven't made an argument based on anything positive they deserve.
Formal rules. I like it. (Only, it took me a while to realise exactly what they were being applied to.)
Well, this one may be a problem for me. You may have noticed that many of my earlier arguments had certain statements about pirates as a group (such as, they're greedy and entitled). In fairness, they probably are prejudices, but also in fairness, they're not without their bases in fact.
But, I suppose that I can give up the prejudicial arguments if you can. But that is a real problem: can you? Some of the policy that you're proposing is definite prejudice against Big Media, which isn't just a single corporation, but in fact, a large group of corporations. When you say they should be destroyed, are you considering each company individually, or are you just making a prejudiced over-generalisation (like me on pirates)?
Huh. Really?
Yeah, but you never know how much a cookies going to cost you...
Well, Microsoft might have tried a little harder to secure their system.
How? What do you think this is, constructive criticism!?
OK, I get it. You're not going to tell me the advantages of piracy over boycotting, simply because you know, deep down, that they're all selfish. Whatever, you know now, you won't stop, probably because, like so many other pirates, you're addicted to the free entertainment. You still, however, have a point about the copyright system that I'm not averse to discussing, and ending the discussion on this note would be a cop-out.
You're conflating several concepts here. First we have publishers, next we have public domain, and lastly, we have respect from artists. You seem to be under this weird delusion that blindly changing one thing will result in an improvement in all categories.
In fact, you still haven't actually convinced me that publishers are inherent problems. I still can't fathom why you consider them thieves, bloodsuckers, or whatever else you decide to call them, when the arrangement is mutually arranged, and often, mutually beneficial. I mean, do you call your greengrocer a thief just because he accepts your money in exchange for food? Would I be allowed to "liberate" your food, admittedly hurting you, but drawing attention to the cause of evil greengrocers? It's completely ridiculous!
As for the public domain, while I agree that healthy public domain is conducive to a healthy culture, and right now, we definitely do not have a healthy public domain, we must be very careful about extending too much. I mean, right now, we can still access copyrighted works, for pay if necessary, from which to draw inspiration. It's not like artists aren't prepared to spend a little for inspiration and enjoyment. There isn't a group of artists twiddling their thumbs, waiting for inspiration to drop into public domain. There's still a huge well of inspiration out there.
Plus, every extension of the public domain has an inevitable sting in the tail. Every extension requires a weakening of copyright, and every weakening of copyright drops the artists in the bottom percentiles. Of course, this can be completely worthwhile, and I do think that we should shorten copyright term lengths. However, I make no illusion about the fact that there will be a price to pay in terms of variety.
As for the issue of respect, you have to remember that you can't force artists to be your friend using legal methods. If you want your artists to treat you as partners, then just buy from artists who treat you as partners.
I think you're missing some grammar. I'm having some trouble parsing this statement. However, I don't think it matters:
Ha! This is the entitlement generation! The generation that will pirate iPhone apps, the generation that will pirate a game simply because it doesn't come with a dedicated server service, the generation that will pirate simply because it makes a convenient soapbox to preach from. This is a generation raised on the morality of
I don't know about all the other suckers out there, but I'd pay more for the iPhone. Hey, at least I can use it, and it's fun, and it can't be replaced by something worth $10.