Yeah, but sometimes getting what you want in a free market requires you to deprive yourself of what you really, really want, and start showing companies who's boss.
Other times, it's about prioritising and realising what you actually want, and exactly how much you are willing to sacrifice for it.
This is just my personal view, maybe idealistic. I work as a programmer in the IT industry. Around me a lot of people are sympathizing with the PP exactly because of civil rights issues.
I certainly believe you. I've seen enough of slashdot here to realise that the majority of people here rallying behind the pirate party are doing so out of apparent concern for the state of civil liberties.
However, I do think that people would vote for the pirate party to legalise sharing (even if I would not). Hell, there are plenty of parties who's primary line is legalising certain drugs, and whose stance on the economy, foreign relations, or anything remotely important, is more a wire-mesh model of policy, rather than policy itself. Granted, only a handful of people vote for them.
Still, it could well be a deciding factor for many people. When tossing up between two groups that both kinda represent their interests, they might decide the one that promises free entertainment. These things have influences, and I find that appeal to the greed in people distasteful in general. Especially when they are promising things that they really can't deliver, telling (a certain subsection of) the public what they want to hear, and making up a bunch of BS to back it up. (Pardon the obvious rant.)
It kinda makes me wish that the pirate party would tone down the copyright reform line, and make it more moderate. Then I would get behind them. God knows copyright needs some tightening up.
I think the name is kind of cool. It carries. For me at least it carries a lot of meaning beyond "free MP3s".
Perhaps so, but it still carries it! The combination of their copyright policies, and having it take prime position in their title, again I find it distasteful.
But what about possible benefits of *slowing* modding etc? Or discouraging others from choosing to mod? It doesn't have to work perfectly to have an effect.
Besides, I've never thought of Nintendo as a company who condoned homebrew. To what reputation are you referring?
Actually, whether or not a console is sold at a profit is irrelevant. If locking down makes the console manufacturer money, then getting rid of it will create a hole in their profits that they'll have to plug another way, probably, among other things, via a price rise.
Region locking hurts legitimate users, and is used to screw them out of more money.
Say region locking were banned, and prices were fixed throughout everywhere? Do you think the companies would say "Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Lowest price for all!", or do you think they'd start charging a higher price to recoup lost products?
Basically, region coding allows a company to distribute in multiple countries, while tailoring prices to the buying power of specific economies. Sure, some of the economically weaker countries will probably benefit slightly from banning region coding, but it comes at the expense of others.
Besides, region coding is a market problem. It's something that consumers can refuse. There's no lock-in; once the hardware's bought, it's bought, and region coding is typically no secret. Not to mention, there is a major region-free competitor to the Wii, so consumers already have a choice handed to them. The fact you don't like their choice is no reason to start banning.
the people I know who voted for the Pirate Party voted for other reasons.
Wait, you don't think that a hoard of shameless pirates would boost votes?
No, don't worry, I get it. You weren't responding to my post, just to a strawman that you assumed represented my viewpoint.
For the record, I know there are people out there who voted for the pirate party based on civil rights issues. But, exactly how many of that 2.0% do you reckon are voting primarily for civil rights, and not for legalised sharing? How many people include legalised sharing as a civil right that "must" be instated? How many built their opinions and values around feeding their addiction to free entertainment?
This brought far more people onto the streets than pirating music; reducing them to that does them injustice.
Then why the fuck would they join a party called "the pirate party"? By joining such a party who loudly touts poorly thought out and patronising copyright reform (in their title no less!), they place themselves in the company of pirates.
Given the number of people who like free stuff and who haven't properly grasped the effects of copyright law, I would have thought that number would be much higher.
You're right. I guess me and anyone else who has ever appreciated commercial culture is doomed to dry and desolate "whenever I fucking feel like it" culture. Oh well, it was nice while we had it.
If we can get teachers on board, it has the potential for some benefit. It doesn't matter whether or not children are interested in them; they're supposed to be tool, not a toy. When they become an integrated part of the lessons, that's where the fun starts (but not necessarily for them).
Surely you too can see why it's more than just political posturing to give kids access to software like a word processor, a platform for storing notes and textbooks, and possible future software to be included in curricula, right? I get that it's expensive, but on the other hand, you can't expect to see computers to have an impact on education unless *everyone* has access to one, and that there's some standards between them.
Perhaps you're a little confused as to the point of this "scheme". It's not a social experiment designed to test security systems against 14-18 year olds. It's to provide them with a laptop, and hopefully avoid some pitfalls. The oppressive security measures are designed to stop kids from loading games or worse onto their computer (they're a work tool after all). It doesn't really matter if some kids manage to hack the machine, it's more to prevent casual stupid or inappropriate behaviour.
To be fair, just because officials are calling them "unhackable", doesn't mean that the relevant people aren't aware reality of the situation. It could be that "unhackable" may simply mean that they've pulled out all stops in an attempt to curb hacking as much as possible (but guess which is more catchy!).
OK, to be fair, it isn't that easy to morph the censorship of a symbol into general oppression. The point is that it's a step down a path of which we'd rather never see the end.
Naturally. That's the purpose behind their lives. That's the purpose around which they've built their one and only lifetime: to screw the average citizen.
Not one of them ever admit it. Not one of them ever get an attack of conscience. Not one of them ever trust their plan with someone they shouldn't have. They are precisely coordinated enough to run not one, but two major political parties to maintain an illusion of animosity, simply to make their plan less obvious to the public.
And look how well it's working! Nobody ever questions the government!
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but sometimes getting what you want in a free market requires you to deprive yourself of what you really, really want, and start showing companies who's boss.
Other times, it's about prioritising and realising what you actually want, and exactly how much you are willing to sacrifice for it.
I certainly believe you. I've seen enough of slashdot here to realise that the majority of people here rallying behind the pirate party are doing so out of apparent concern for the state of civil liberties.
However, I do think that people would vote for the pirate party to legalise sharing (even if I would not). Hell, there are plenty of parties who's primary line is legalising certain drugs, and whose stance on the economy, foreign relations, or anything remotely important, is more a wire-mesh model of policy, rather than policy itself. Granted, only a handful of people vote for them.
Still, it could well be a deciding factor for many people. When tossing up between two groups that both kinda represent their interests, they might decide the one that promises free entertainment. These things have influences, and I find that appeal to the greed in people distasteful in general. Especially when they are promising things that they really can't deliver, telling (a certain subsection of) the public what they want to hear, and making up a bunch of BS to back it up. (Pardon the obvious rant.)
It kinda makes me wish that the pirate party would tone down the copyright reform line, and make it more moderate. Then I would get behind them. God knows copyright needs some tightening up.
Perhaps so, but it still carries it! The combination of their copyright policies, and having it take prime position in their title, again I find it distasteful.
But what about possible benefits of *slowing* modding etc? Or discouraging others from choosing to mod? It doesn't have to work perfectly to have an effect.
Besides, I've never thought of Nintendo as a company who condoned homebrew. To what reputation are you referring?
Actually, whether or not a console is sold at a profit is irrelevant. If locking down makes the console manufacturer money, then getting rid of it will create a hole in their profits that they'll have to plug another way, probably, among other things, via a price rise.
Say region locking were banned, and prices were fixed throughout everywhere? Do you think the companies would say "Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Lowest price for all!", or do you think they'd start charging a higher price to recoup lost products?
Basically, region coding allows a company to distribute in multiple countries, while tailoring prices to the buying power of specific economies. Sure, some of the economically weaker countries will probably benefit slightly from banning region coding, but it comes at the expense of others.
Besides, region coding is a market problem. It's something that consumers can refuse. There's no lock-in; once the hardware's bought, it's bought, and region coding is typically no secret. Not to mention, there is a major region-free competitor to the Wii, so consumers already have a choice handed to them. The fact you don't like their choice is no reason to start banning.
That happened to a cousin of a friend of a close friend of mine!
And to think some people complained that English was overrepresented on the internet...
Not to mention the stupid shithead company.
Wait, you don't think that a hoard of shameless pirates would boost votes?
No, don't worry, I get it. You weren't responding to my post, just to a strawman that you assumed represented my viewpoint.
For the record, I know there are people out there who voted for the pirate party based on civil rights issues. But, exactly how many of that 2.0% do you reckon are voting primarily for civil rights, and not for legalised sharing? How many people include legalised sharing as a civil right that "must" be instated? How many built their opinions and values around feeding their addiction to free entertainment?
Then why the fuck would they join a party called "the pirate party"? By joining such a party who loudly touts poorly thought out and patronising copyright reform (in their title no less!), they place themselves in the company of pirates.
Given the number of people who like free stuff and who haven't properly grasped the effects of copyright law, I would have thought that number would be much higher.
You're right. I guess me and anyone else who has ever appreciated commercial culture is doomed to dry and desolate "whenever I fucking feel like it" culture. Oh well, it was nice while we had it.
You sounded like you had a good point, until you let fanboy rants cloud it.
Hey, politics ain't just for the mainstream, y'know.
If we can get teachers on board, it has the potential for some benefit. It doesn't matter whether or not children are interested in them; they're supposed to be tool, not a toy. When they become an integrated part of the lessons, that's where the fun starts (but not necessarily for them).
Surely you too can see why it's more than just political posturing to give kids access to software like a word processor, a platform for storing notes and textbooks, and possible future software to be included in curricula, right? I get that it's expensive, but on the other hand, you can't expect to see computers to have an impact on education unless *everyone* has access to one, and that there's some standards between them.
Our mission is clear: Ubuntu 9.10 Fucking Ferrets.
I don't know about you, but when some ignorant loudmouth asshole starts telling me what to do, I don't look for ways to accommodate his every wish.
Perhaps you're a little confused as to the point of this "scheme". It's not a social experiment designed to test security systems against 14-18 year olds. It's to provide them with a laptop, and hopefully avoid some pitfalls. The oppressive security measures are designed to stop kids from loading games or worse onto their computer (they're a work tool after all). It doesn't really matter if some kids manage to hack the machine, it's more to prevent casual stupid or inappropriate behaviour.
To be fair, just because officials are calling them "unhackable", doesn't mean that the relevant people aren't aware reality of the situation. It could be that "unhackable" may simply mean that they've pulled out all stops in an attempt to curb hacking as much as possible (but guess which is more catchy!).
No, free speech is something doled out through US cultural imperialism.
The US constitution. It's got what people crave!
OK, to be fair, it isn't that easy to morph the censorship of a symbol into general oppression. The point is that it's a step down a path of which we'd rather never see the end.
He also assumes the world is round, the sky is blue, and the sun rises in the east. What's your point?
Yeah, but that doesn't mean he wants it opened when he clicks links on the /. front page.
Naturally. That's the purpose behind their lives. That's the purpose around which they've built their one and only lifetime: to screw the average citizen.
Not one of them ever admit it. Not one of them ever get an attack of conscience. Not one of them ever trust their plan with someone they shouldn't have. They are precisely coordinated enough to run not one, but two major political parties to maintain an illusion of animosity, simply to make their plan less obvious to the public.
And look how well it's working! Nobody ever questions the government!
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the ship has sailed on that one.
Not yet. First you have to start shooting messengers and feet.
Well, to be accurate, plagiarism is a facet of copyright. You can't have anti-plagiarism laws without some form of ownership of information.