I'm not 100% sure it was captain planet. The culture against corporations has been mounting for years. Hell, even Roald Dahl is rife with anti-wealth sentiments, which can trivially be extended to corporations.
And I suppose the fact that there are plenty of CEOs in the limelight who do put profit ahead of the environment doesn't help the matter.
Since when does "a real Slashdotter" equate a "Green group"?
I do, however, take your point. It ain't easy being green. The rules are complex and the details are subject to rapid, radical change. That's primarily because, when it comes down to it, we don't really know how to be green. It's an optimisation problem with ill-defined parameters. We want to do as little harm to the environment as possible, while at the same time, maintaining some level of quality of life. And the expectations for both change from person to person. It's ridiculous to think that you could ever win in such a game.
On the other hand, as much as we don't know about how to be green, we are forming quite a sharp picture of how to not be green. You don't have to be perfect, you just have to seriously try. Sure, like with any ideology, there will be nuts out there who disagree, but the fact is that a large majority of the foreseeable damage that people can (and often do) do to the environment can be avoided by taking simple steps, ones that don't hugely affect quality of life.
In the construction of any powerful group, there always needs to be a balance between the power to get things done and the checks and balances. It doesn't just apply to governments, but also corporations. A corporation is useless without some power to make decisions, but at the same time, we don't want it running amok with its power and influence (which tends to happen from time to time).
The problem with your "cooperatives", especially as they grow to a half-decent size, is that they tend heavily towards the useless side. The ability to make decisions is not just important, but absolutely vital. That's very difficult to achieve with a group of people without rank.
Imagine, as an example, that in your country (assuming that it's democratic) had no leader, and the decision-making was subjected to the will of the people. Imagine all the projects left half-finished and half funded, as the population undermines itself on decisions. Imagine all the time wasted on bickering. Imagine trying to defend the country! It doesn't work. There needs to be someone, or a small group, who can actually work together to make tough decisions.
Now, a cooperative won't be as big or bad as a whole country, but the principle remains the same. There's no use having cooperatives if they won't get anything done.
Most folks don't give a crap about Adobe owning Flash - they just want stuff to work. If Adobe tanks, and no one buys them out, and they're stuck, then they'll start to care.
No such luck. Adobe mysteriously tanking without warning wouldn't mysteriously tank all flash installations or installers. In fact, it would be entirely possible that the web would continue to use flash after Adobe's abrupt end. The common joe need never know.
It's "Viva La RevoluciÃn!" Try to make an effort.. if you would..please...It's not that hard
Firefox did something funny with my à when I copied it (I said à dammit!). I consider it an effort.
Once again, ignorance foments disrespect.;)
Now you're doing it. You're saying I don't want to pay the artist.
Sorry, where did I say that? I believe that I referred to "every work you've pirated", but that's the closest I think I got to accusing you of not wanting to pay artists.
It's the gatekeepers I'm out to crush. If the artist is going to put a weaselly rep between me and him, then screw 'em both.
Let's make a tally. You don't like artists who choose to be represented by middlemen, you don't like artists who can't afford not to be represented by middlemen, you don't like artists who expect you to give up your self-appointed right to do whatever you like with "your" copies. But you don't mind paying for artworks. Have I got it right?
Well, I guess that's fair enough, so long as you put your money where your mouth is. Buy/download only artists you like. Funding that particular niche market will only lead it to increase. Try to get friends and acquaintances on board. That can only make it grow. If such a niche becomes popular enough, it will hurt the artists you don't like, but even if it doesn't, at least you get what you want, and the rest of us get what we want.
Obviously you have no grasp of what I'm saying.
I know what you're saying. You've just started a not-so-subtle shift in your approach to this argument, and you've also gone for the "this is what I was saying all along" ploy to gain some cheap capital in the argument. Now, instead of talking about freedoms, about how copyright is not necessary, we've completely changed topic, and are now talking about middlemen.
I don't mind; most people that I argue copyright with usually realise that their beef is with middlemen, or more specifically the **AA. I just prefer people to be open about it.
Read up again on the stated (as opposed to its real) intent of copyright.
Read up again on the "real" intent of copyright, as purported by idiots ignorant of copyright's true benefits. It's just more of that "demonic fat cats vs the saintly common man" false dichotomy crap. I think I grew out of that stuff when I was five.
It is a privilege that the state grants to purportedly encourage more creation.
That's true. That is its purpose, and that's what it does. It also serves as a vehicle, very occasionally, to do some nastier stuff. I'm not sure I see your point.
It's actual effect is let people sit on their duffs and collect the rent.
OK. Let's see you sit on your duff and collect rent from copyright. Right now. Tell me how it goes, without some initial work invested. Is anyone buying your whole load of nothing yet?
That's what all the extensions are about.
Extensions, in theory, are about increasing the incentive to create, not about allowing people to sit on their duffs. In practice, it does do that, but the profits of the final years are often so small that it's hard to see how it's worth forcing people to wait for it to enter public domain. Extensions certainly aren't the most enviable part of modern copyright.
Berne and WIPO have proven you dead wrong.
Berne, aka copyright extensions, while regrettable, is not a huge problem. In fact, it's interesting in that taking copyright restrictions away doesn't solve the problem. Making it such that the work would never have been created doesn't make the work become freely available any faster. Also, it benefits from being complete
Sorry man, too many people peeing in the pool. Gotta drain it and scrub it down. Actually it should be filled in with concrete. It is now nuclear waste.
In that analogy, the pool is the fucking ocean. Like I said, the benefits of copyright are huge, and the transgressions are small, or if big, then relatively few and far between. And there's always plenty we can fish from it.
Society gave you the inch, and now you're taking the mile. All I can say is screw that. I'm taking my inch back. You'll get respect when you show some.
It's not about giving inches; this isn't a charity. You got your culture. You owe the artist of every work you've pirated for keeping up their end of the bargain. They gave you an inch (their work), and now you are taking a mile (every work created, or that was going to be created before you ruin everything).
And yes, they will respect you once you stop stealing from them! I think that's a fair ask.
Reading your post leads me to believe that you work in somebody's public relations department (or maybe you should). So much marketspeak.
Let me give you some of my background:
a. I don't work, nor have I ever worked, as a PR guy b. I have never, nor do I plan to in the foreseeable future, produced a commercial copyrighted artwork c. I'm relatively poor and I like music and games, so I'm the perfect candidate for someone who could pirate d. but I don't e. I'm actually just a mathematics student, with a reasonable intelligence, and a grasp of these concepts
Here, this is exactly what I meant. Ignorance foments disrespect. I'm sorry, but understanding why copyright works requires a little intelligence, or at least some understanding of economics. I suggest that if you want to be taken seriously, that you actually try to comprehend the arguments against you. Otherwise you're going to be flattened in any debate, like the one that just happened now.
Get it straight, copyright should deal with plagiarism, nothing else. Attribution is forever.
Wait, why should copyright deal with plagiarism? Who are we to tell you, the great freedom fighter, whether or not to distribute your copy under your own name, possibly for profit? This seems like an abridgement of your freedom to do... stuff! Viva La RevoluciÃn!
And surely, these artists have no right to their work. They're just stealing from the public if they try to exert control over our culture, right?
My uni made it clear that they reserved the right to use turnitin for certain assignments, as a condition of enrolment, and I would guess other universities would do the same. So, it's not technically opt out as it is making an exception for your opting in.
And the fact that it's head department policy is neither here nor there. The university wants it, you agreed to it, make a deal if you want an exception.
Present day copyright law is theft. It steals from the public. The ??AAs exploit this. They are selling stolen property for profit. Damn near the very definition of piracy, high seas romanticism aside. At the very least it's racketeering.
This is how people get the impression that pirates are spoilt, self-entitled pricks. Sure, if we ignore the fact that elected officials passed these laws, and bypass the whole debate about **AA-sponsored laws, then selling something past, say, 40 years may be considered to be stealing from the public, but selling new copyrighted works, well, that's only stealing if you consider the uncreated works to be yours anyway. They are not yours. You have no entitlement over them. In fact, you should be glad that something that you're interested in has been created in the first place. Clearly you couldn't do it for yourself, so it seems fair to pay for the services of others.
But, the fact that you specified "Present day" copyright law suggests that you more object to more modern facets of copyright law, like long term periods, and/or the DMCA.
This guy constantly trolls about people not wanting to pay the authors of creative works, which of course is bullshit and has been proven over and over.
A vast majority of people, carrying along that line of thought, are not suggesting that if you pirate, you don't want to pay anything, a claim which there is evidence against. Most of these people mean that pirates, on most occasions, prefer not to pay the artist for their work, and reap the benefits at the same time. Sure, some of them have a semblance of a moral compass, and charitably pay for works that they, without any oversight, deem to be of requisite quality, but mostly, they have no intention of paying, and they still gain some sort of enjoyment out of the experience.
But it accomplishes its mission of drawing lots of hits for its own purpose. The definition applies.
The definition of trolling, huh? Sometimes, incurring the rage associated with dissenting from/. groupthink is a necessary side-effect of disseminating your opinions. Trolls are people who post simply to get a reaction from the crowd. I see nothing at all that suggests that he isn't yet another disillusioned with the selfish greed that is an integral part of piracy.
Ok, the GPL exploits copyright. Feel better?
I'll feel better when you realise that hating copyright + using copyright != clever hack that isn't really "using", so much as "abusing" it. You use copyrighted material, if you use the GPL. It is perfectly within the purviews of copyright, and using it, as opposed to simply releasing into the public domain is unnecessary, but you may find that you'll lose big corporate code support, as they simply take your code and don't contribute back. If you're a commercial developer, it's even worse: it means you get a severe pay cut, that only gets more severe as time goes on.
Personally, I could not care less. But nobody has a right to tell me what I can do with my copy. Including disassembly, distribution, etc.
So you agree that GPL developers are over the line? Why do you bother with GPLed software then?
In fact, why bother with anything copyrighted? You agree that nobody should be able to tell you what to do with your copies, so why not just refuse copies then? If you get one by mistake, throw it away or sell it. It obviously abridges certain freedoms that you feel entitled to, so why sell your soul?
Unless, of course, you happen to appreciate certain copyrighted works. In that case, you're screwed. You've already sold these freedoms as a price of regularly using copyrighted works. You are already reliant on the current system, and on the hard work by other people, and now you are morally and legally obliged to pay for a small part of that hard work.
The last one is particularly vicious, and comes from people who use memes which are 8 months to 3 years out of date, and need to be beat to death with a large spongy bat.
The article says that it was weighted by sales, which means this study was self-selecting. Who buys most games? White males. What is the predominant findings? Characters are white males. All this shows is that people who buy games are similar psychologically to all other people in seeking out representations closest to themselves.
Well, I guess the question comes down to whether we are less likely to play a game if the main character wasn't a white male.
I wouldn't have thought that I would be "that kind of person", but when I started playing Metroid games, I had no idea that Samus was a woman; I had just assumed her to be male. When I found out, I must admit it felt a little weird for a while. It hasn't stopped me buying the games though.
Some people simply don't like having their brain (or ones like it) studied. They like it even less if it's understood. It tends to mess with their notion of identity and free will.
You're on the right track, just less cut and dried.
It's not always a user's fault that their CDs pack it in; they do have a shelf life. You can support DRMed media by buying more, encouraging others to support the same company, or buying shares in the company in question (possibly to even get the DRM cracked). Users do have undeniably more influence on their CD collection's life than their DRMed song collection's life, but "control" and "no control" is not absolute on either side.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I had the same experience with encyclopedia encarta.
What?
I'm not 100% sure it was captain planet. The culture against corporations has been mounting for years. Hell, even Roald Dahl is rife with anti-wealth sentiments, which can trivially be extended to corporations.
And I suppose the fact that there are plenty of CEOs in the limelight who do put profit ahead of the environment doesn't help the matter.
Since when does "a real Slashdotter" equate a "Green group"?
I do, however, take your point. It ain't easy being green. The rules are complex and the details are subject to rapid, radical change. That's primarily because, when it comes down to it, we don't really know how to be green. It's an optimisation problem with ill-defined parameters. We want to do as little harm to the environment as possible, while at the same time, maintaining some level of quality of life. And the expectations for both change from person to person. It's ridiculous to think that you could ever win in such a game.
On the other hand, as much as we don't know about how to be green, we are forming quite a sharp picture of how to not be green. You don't have to be perfect, you just have to seriously try. Sure, like with any ideology, there will be nuts out there who disagree, but the fact is that a large majority of the foreseeable damage that people can (and often do) do to the environment can be avoided by taking simple steps, ones that don't hugely affect quality of life.
Try uninstalling the English - New Zealand dictionary.
In the construction of any powerful group, there always needs to be a balance between the power to get things done and the checks and balances. It doesn't just apply to governments, but also corporations. A corporation is useless without some power to make decisions, but at the same time, we don't want it running amok with its power and influence (which tends to happen from time to time).
The problem with your "cooperatives", especially as they grow to a half-decent size, is that they tend heavily towards the useless side. The ability to make decisions is not just important, but absolutely vital. That's very difficult to achieve with a group of people without rank.
Imagine, as an example, that in your country (assuming that it's democratic) had no leader, and the decision-making was subjected to the will of the people. Imagine all the projects left half-finished and half funded, as the population undermines itself on decisions. Imagine all the time wasted on bickering. Imagine trying to defend the country! It doesn't work. There needs to be someone, or a small group, who can actually work together to make tough decisions.
Now, a cooperative won't be as big or bad as a whole country, but the principle remains the same. There's no use having cooperatives if they won't get anything done.
I might agree with you if I knew what "good" means.
Or how to read.
Bastards! How dare they trade in consensual labour!
That's probably because their first priority was investigating a sudden influx of new IQ statistics that materialised spontaneously overnight.
... while we wonder how they manage to make so much money.
... they're not as obvious going about it as they were in the past.
No such luck. Adobe mysteriously tanking without warning wouldn't mysteriously tank all flash installations or installers. In fact, it would be entirely possible that the web would continue to use flash after Adobe's abrupt end. The common joe need never know.
Quite frankly, I'm amazed that it took this long for a high score comment to say something without the words "suicide", "foot", and "bullet".
I hope that people remember that people using your services is not a guarantee of success, right?
Me too.
It wasn't entirely unenjoyable. ;)
Firefox did something funny with my à when I copied it (I said à dammit!). I consider it an effort.
Once again, ignorance foments disrespect. ;)
Sorry, where did I say that? I believe that I referred to "every work you've pirated", but that's the closest I think I got to accusing you of not wanting to pay artists.
Let's make a tally. You don't like artists who choose to be represented by middlemen, you don't like artists who can't afford not to be represented by middlemen, you don't like artists who expect you to give up your self-appointed right to do whatever you like with "your" copies. But you don't mind paying for artworks. Have I got it right?
Well, I guess that's fair enough, so long as you put your money where your mouth is. Buy/download only artists you like. Funding that particular niche market will only lead it to increase. Try to get friends and acquaintances on board. That can only make it grow. If such a niche becomes popular enough, it will hurt the artists you don't like, but even if it doesn't, at least you get what you want, and the rest of us get what we want.
I know what you're saying. You've just started a not-so-subtle shift in your approach to this argument, and you've also gone for the "this is what I was saying all along" ploy to gain some cheap capital in the argument. Now, instead of talking about freedoms, about how copyright is not necessary, we've completely changed topic, and are now talking about middlemen.
I don't mind; most people that I argue copyright with usually realise that their beef is with middlemen, or more specifically the **AA. I just prefer people to be open about it.
Read up again on the "real" intent of copyright, as purported by idiots ignorant of copyright's true benefits. It's just more of that "demonic fat cats vs the saintly common man" false dichotomy crap. I think I grew out of that stuff when I was five.
That's true. That is its purpose, and that's what it does. It also serves as a vehicle, very occasionally, to do some nastier stuff. I'm not sure I see your point.
OK. Let's see you sit on your duff and collect rent from copyright. Right now. Tell me how it goes, without some initial work invested. Is anyone buying your whole load of nothing yet?
Extensions, in theory, are about increasing the incentive to create, not about allowing people to sit on their duffs. In practice, it does do that, but the profits of the final years are often so small that it's hard to see how it's worth forcing people to wait for it to enter public domain. Extensions certainly aren't the most enviable part of modern copyright.
Berne, aka copyright extensions, while regrettable, is not a huge problem. In fact, it's interesting in that taking copyright restrictions away doesn't solve the problem. Making it such that the work would never have been created doesn't make the work become freely available any faster. Also, it benefits from being complete
In that analogy, the pool is the fucking ocean. Like I said, the benefits of copyright are huge, and the transgressions are small, or if big, then relatively few and far between. And there's always plenty we can fish from it.
It's not about giving inches; this isn't a charity. You got your culture. You owe the artist of every work you've pirated for keeping up their end of the bargain. They gave you an inch (their work), and now you are taking a mile (every work created, or that was going to be created before you ruin everything).
And yes, they will respect you once you stop stealing from them! I think that's a fair ask.
Let me give you some of my background:
a. I don't work, nor have I ever worked, as a PR guy
b. I have never, nor do I plan to in the foreseeable future, produced a commercial copyrighted artwork
c. I'm relatively poor and I like music and games, so I'm the perfect candidate for someone who could pirate
d. but I don't
e. I'm actually just a mathematics student, with a reasonable intelligence, and a grasp of these concepts
Here, this is exactly what I meant. Ignorance foments disrespect. I'm sorry, but understanding why copyright works requires a little intelligence, or at least some understanding of economics. I suggest that if you want to be taken seriously, that you actually try to comprehend the arguments against you. Otherwise you're going to be flattened in any debate, like the one that just happened now.
Wait, why should copyright deal with plagiarism? Who are we to tell you, the great freedom fighter, whether or not to distribute your copy under your own name, possibly for profit? This seems like an abridgement of your freedom to do... stuff! Viva La RevoluciÃn!
And surely, these artists have no right to their work. They're just stealing from the public if they try to exert control over our culture, right?
So, "legally sanctioned" means "operating within the law", right?
Sorry, I was just under the impression that it had a different meaning.
I think you're severely overstating the problem.
My uni made it clear that they reserved the right to use turnitin for certain assignments, as a condition of enrolment, and I would guess other universities would do the same. So, it's not technically opt out as it is making an exception for your opting in.
And the fact that it's head department policy is neither here nor there. The university wants it, you agreed to it, make a deal if you want an exception.
This is how people get the impression that pirates are spoilt, self-entitled pricks. Sure, if we ignore the fact that elected officials passed these laws, and bypass the whole debate about **AA-sponsored laws, then selling something past, say, 40 years may be considered to be stealing from the public, but selling new copyrighted works, well, that's only stealing if you consider the uncreated works to be yours anyway. They are not yours. You have no entitlement over them. In fact, you should be glad that something that you're interested in has been created in the first place. Clearly you couldn't do it for yourself, so it seems fair to pay for the services of others.
But, the fact that you specified "Present day" copyright law suggests that you more object to more modern facets of copyright law, like long term periods, and/or the DMCA.
A vast majority of people, carrying along that line of thought, are not suggesting that if you pirate, you don't want to pay anything, a claim which there is evidence against. Most of these people mean that pirates, on most occasions, prefer not to pay the artist for their work, and reap the benefits at the same time. Sure, some of them have a semblance of a moral compass, and charitably pay for works that they, without any oversight, deem to be of requisite quality, but mostly, they have no intention of paying, and they still gain some sort of enjoyment out of the experience.
The definition of trolling, huh? Sometimes, incurring the rage associated with dissenting from /. groupthink is a necessary side-effect of disseminating your opinions. Trolls are people who post simply to get a reaction from the crowd. I see nothing at all that suggests that he isn't yet another disillusioned with the selfish greed that is an integral part of piracy.
I'll feel better when you realise that hating copyright + using copyright != clever hack that isn't really "using", so much as "abusing" it. You use copyrighted material, if you use the GPL. It is perfectly within the purviews of copyright, and using it, as opposed to simply releasing into the public domain is unnecessary, but you may find that you'll lose big corporate code support, as they simply take your code and don't contribute back. If you're a commercial developer, it's even worse: it means you get a severe pay cut, that only gets more severe as time goes on.
So you agree that GPL developers are over the line? Why do you bother with GPLed software then?
In fact, why bother with anything copyrighted? You agree that nobody should be able to tell you what to do with your copies, so why not just refuse copies then? If you get one by mistake, throw it away or sell it. It obviously abridges certain freedoms that you feel entitled to, so why sell your soul?
Unless, of course, you happen to appreciate certain copyrighted works. In that case, you're screwed. You've already sold these freedoms as a price of regularly using copyrighted works. You are already reliant on the current system, and on the hard work by other people, and now you are morally and legally obliged to pay for a small part of that hard work.
From here
Psst! Your sig is showing! ;)
Well, I guess the question comes down to whether we are less likely to play a game if the main character wasn't a white male.
I wouldn't have thought that I would be "that kind of person", but when I started playing Metroid games, I had no idea that Samus was a woman; I had just assumed her to be male. When I found out, I must admit it felt a little weird for a while. It hasn't stopped me buying the games though.
Some people simply don't like having their brain (or ones like it) studied. They like it even less if it's understood. It tends to mess with their notion of identity and free will.
Would you consider it dogmatic and unimaginative of me to request that you use capitals?
Or at least get your shift key fixed.
That sounds like one of those newfangled phoney-baloney diseases. He should get a real man's disease.
So?
I gotta say, if I were a taxpayer in San Francisco, a handful of guys getting free parking would be the least of my worries.
You're on the right track, just less cut and dried.
It's not always a user's fault that their CDs pack it in; they do have a shelf life. You can support DRMed media by buying more, encouraging others to support the same company, or buying shares in the company in question (possibly to even get the DRM cracked). Users do have undeniably more influence on their CD collection's life than their DRMed song collection's life, but "control" and "no control" is not absolute on either side.