Are you referring to the mathematical near-certainty that a song's hook will inevitably match that of at least one of the millions of songs in BMI and ASCAP's repertory?
"Millions" is such a small, inadequate measure of a number matched up against the infinite possibilities for composition of a song.
Aside from simple envy, I fail to see why you hate him so. Perhaps all he did was get extremely lucky, perhaps there was a bit of skill involved. Either way I really don't see why he's a stupid fratboy, or why his opinions are idiocy.
Well, you can look at the speculative picture. Let's say, for example, you saw a powerful man murder someone else, and you don't know whether to testify against him. The government wants this guy in prison, so they offer to help you get away, change your name, and give you some limited protection in exchange for testifying. Which would you prefer?
a) The government doesn't help you or anyone else in the same situation and the crime boss goes free b) The government helps you, and posts your details on Wikileaks c) The government helps you, keeps the information private
There's just one example of it working, and working for the people. A Bad Guy goes behind bars, and an innocent is not killed.
Without copyright there'd be nothing but open source text books
Yes, that is true in a very vacuous sense. All commercial textbook writers would eventually stop trying to even break even on textbook-writing, pack up, and go home. Don't then delude yourself that this would mean more free textbooks. Any small increases would be a result of teachers having less choice, and thus being forced to contribute his own time in order to tailor the information to his students/teaching methods. That is not a good thing, especially considering the labour borne from such efforts is not aimed at progressing the book, so much as making private tweaks.
the exclusionary aspect of copyright is only mitigated to a very limited extent by the ability of individual authors to 'copyleft' or revoke copyright.
The excusionary aspect of copyright? What exclusionary aspect of copyright? It's always been an optional endeavour. This "limited mitigation factor", in fact, sinks pretty much any possible exclusionary factor.
Actually, tell a lie, there is one exclusionary factor. It's an unfortunate fact, but copyright begins to exclude other business models because it actually happens to be more successful than other business models. It produces more popular artworks in greater volume, and sustains the artist in the process. Artists prefer it, most customers prefer what they get from it, the only unfortunate part is the price, but many of us don't mind paying for the things we voluntarily decide to keep.
the textbook market is nowhere near anything like a functioning market.
Your point is well taken. I have little doubt that back-scratching takes place. The proportion of times it happens, however, I'm less sure about. However, I would say that there would be plenty of teachers/professors who don't mind choosing based on the quality of the book and the price who would be interested in such a project.
People, learning independently of a teacher also buy textbooks. I, for example, am waiting on two cheap textbooks, nothing to do with my uni work, to arrive in the mail for some holiday reading (yeah, I know I'm a nerd; that's why I'm here). I would be happy to get an equivalent free textbook instead, if it were of decent quality.
Hell, we can even see demand here. There seems to be quite a bit of support for this idea. Besides, exactly how much demand does an open source project need? Surely the problem isn't that we have a bunch of willing and able people under the impression that people only want to pay for textbooks?
I'm sorry, but you'll have to provide better reasoning than simply "the market is not really free". Regulation is done with the purpose of making the free market work better, because without it, the freedom of the market becomes its own worst enemy. A good example of this is antitrust legislation, designed to correct the inherent imbalance of power between people and corporations. A similarly fine example is, as you mentioned, copyright, which prevents competition in distribution from cannibalising demand for new works, and thus causing the whole system to collapse. With these regulations, the free market can actually exist, and only then can it start functioning.
So, if you wish to show that my statement isn't the case here, I suggest you appeal to a specific regulation that is hindering the creation of open source textbooks. It certainly isn't copyright, since copyright can be revoked in full or in part.
The evidence that such textbooks are "impossible" (they're not really, more on that later) is that we know that they already have a more than ample demand (one that outstrips the competition due to their price), that they have a functioning free market, but they still don't exist. It simply means that people who can provide such a textbook are unwilling to do so. Perhaps being open source is one of those "requirements so unreasonable that no-one will be able to meet them".
But, I don't think such textbooks are "impossible" so much as unlikely. I think we simply need someone with some knowledge to take the initiative and start writing an open source textbook. I predict that if such a person starts, and advertises effectively over the internet (through blogs etc), then the open source textbook market would actually take off. I also predict that their information would be justifiably treated with suspicion, like Wikipedia is treated today, but will still be a valuable source of knowledge.
Come now. You know the **AA are a bunch of jerks, but you don't want to see them taken down?
I know that they're jerks, and I would like to see some punishment handed down to them. However, as a higher priority, I'd like to see them reform, and I'd like to see that innocent people are not affected. Revenge is simply not a good enough reason to do something rash like abolish copyright. Such issues must be dealt with a clear mind, rational debate, and of course, quality evidence.
Trailers? Oh, you mean the 2-3 minute snippets where they tack the 2-3 minutes worth of good, interesting and intense scenes of the movie together? Yeah, that sure tells me about the quality of the movie. Kinda like, say, an ad tells me about the quality of a product.
They're not an indicator of the quality of the product; they tell you what the movie is about (most of the time) and give you a rough idea of whether or not you'd be interested.
As for reviews, I've been writing for a computer magazine. If the reviews of movies are of the same quality (and mostly dependent on ad money generated by the company pushing the movie), I refuse, thanks.
Whatever. If you don't want to look for decent reviews, then don't bitch to everyone about how you're 'forced' to pirate these movies.
And yes, they do want me to see it. Or, at least, they want me to pay for it.
Forget it. I was trying to make a subtle, pre-emptive counter to a point, but obviously it doesn't apply to you.
Since I stopped going to the movies and buying movies (more because I noticed that yes, indeed, it's worth neither my time nor my money anymore, maybe I grew out of it or the quality really declined) I am part of the "pirate" share in their statistics.
The pirate statistics, I would think, would be a highly variable estimation based on monitoring of activities on P2P networks and bittorrent over a short time, possibly coupled with sale drops. I don't know; I'm just speculating.
However, let me say that the best way to avoid becoming a piracy statistic is to not participate in piracy.
If schools really cared about anything but profits, then we'd have a mandatory open-source textbook market where academia would be free to create and modify textbooks.
It doesn't work that way. We can't just simply "force" a product to exist. If it doesn't exist already, then that typically means there isn't a happy medium between the cost of providing such a service and the cost to the users of the service. That's the way that free market works; if it can be done, and people want it, then it usually is done. If it doesn't exist, especially if it is a service in high demand, like free knowledge, then it means that, most probably, it can't exist without massive subsidies, or slave labour.
Such global networks featured in the fiction of Heinlein, Asimov and plenty of others before Neuromancer was published. Plenty of authors predicted the growth and utility of world wide computer networks, although none (including Gibson) grasped the full implications of this. And basically, everyone here was copying the ideas of Vannevar Bush, anyway.
You may rest assured as soon as it's released somewhere on this planet, a torrent is created shortly afterwards. That's already how it's done. Do you think "allowing" this to exist in a country would change it one little bit?
Yep. Making it legit would eventually encourage people to get over their moral objections to acquiring free entertainment. So, perhaps there would always be the misguided, the stupid, and the unscrupulous to provide us with torrents without hesitation, but hopefully we can actually help people realise the harm they do by participating and encouraging such a system.
If the movie is good enough, I wanna see it like that! But is it worth the 10 bucks or more? I'm not gonna waste 10 bucks and 2-3 hours of my life on a movie when I don't know if it's worth it.
Well, why don't you try trailers or reviews? It typically works for me. Just find a reviewer or two who you can trust, and if it looks dodgy, then don't see it. God knows, with a 10% success rate, it's a wonder that you even bother any more. You don't want to see them, the creators don't want you to see them (if you're not going to spend the money), seriously, what's the point?
The RIAA and MPAA are a big problem for copyright supporters, since they are admittedly the most outspoken spokespersons for copyright, yet they represent everything wrong with copyright. Don't get me wrong, they also represent a whole lot of what is right with copyright, but oh so much that's wrong with it. There is the greed, there is hard bargains with artists, there are the no court appearance lawsuits, and there is the DRM, but at the same time, there is a lot more to copyright. There's the culture, the inspiration, even the images of celebrity and stardom that encourage others to participate. There's the satisfaction in knowing that you have some input, via the free market, in the art you experience.
We need to stop looking to scuttle this for petty revenge against the **AA. If the pirate party supports a reasonable, reformed copyright, and they understand exactly how much we owe copyright to date for our culture, then they have my vote, despite their name (I would check, but the page is slashdotted). If they wish to undermine copyright, if they are foolish enough to believe that, as the summary suggested, that sharing is somehow less damaging just because money isn't changing hands, then I suggest they give their party points some long hard thought. If they want to simply take down the **AA, then I will fight them every step of the way, because that is, frankly, a simply idiotic approach to change.
How would I go about it? I would leave it to the market. Copyright doesn't grant you a free pass to money. You first have to earn it through creation or investment, and even then, it still has to go through us regular people in order for it to make money. If we don't want the **AA to make money, then it won't. Pure and simple. Sure, they'll kick and scream, but with enough support, even the government will be forced to turn a deaf ear, lest their political careers be over.
The second reason a copyright owner should register a copyrighted work in a timely manner is that the copyright owner will be eligible to receive "statutory damages" and "legal costs and attorneys' fees" from a copyright infringer. A timely manner means that the copyright registration was filed prior to an infringement taking place or within three months from the publication date of the work.
You stated it was never legal to post torrents in Sweden but I pointed out that this statement on your part was incorrect
No, I didn't, but it's OK. It was obviously a misunderstanding.
I know that private trackers are possible, and I believe you when you say that they used to be legal in Sweden. When I talked about posting trackers, I was referring to the kind where you share with potentially hundreds or even thousands of anonymous strangers, and that, even under the most lenient copyright laws, is not legal. The only reason I spoke up is that Aldenissin truly misrepresented the problem (probably out of laziness more than anything else).
You don't know how that sense of hilarity will affect the child! In her first sexual experience, she might end up utterly crushing the ego of an emotionally fragile, spotty teenage boy!
No, but seriously, the issue is more complicated than that. The extent that viewing sex will affect the child is dependent on the reaction of the parents. If they're more conservative on such issues, and react negatively, then it will affect them negatively.
Some would blame the parents for this, but I don't see how this is different from a child experiencing any other kind of taboo; when they do, and the parents react, we don't usually blame the parents for having such values in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
"Millions" is such a small, inadequate measure of a number matched up against the infinite possibilities for composition of a song.
It also helps that people like it better.
... which corresponds with the number of people, per day, who need to read it.
Oh god, I knew I forgot something!
Aside from simple envy, I fail to see why you hate him so. Perhaps all he did was get extremely lucky, perhaps there was a bit of skill involved. Either way I really don't see why he's a stupid fratboy, or why his opinions are idiocy.
The parent post was a none-too-insensitive discussions on the potential darker sides of Wikileaks, and certainly didn't deserve to be modded troll.
Well, you can look at the speculative picture. Let's say, for example, you saw a powerful man murder someone else, and you don't know whether to testify against him. The government wants this guy in prison, so they offer to help you get away, change your name, and give you some limited protection in exchange for testifying. Which would you prefer?
a) The government doesn't help you or anyone else in the same situation and the crime boss goes free
b) The government helps you, and posts your details on Wikileaks
c) The government helps you, keeps the information private
There's just one example of it working, and working for the people. A Bad Guy goes behind bars, and an innocent is not killed.
Yes, that is true in a very vacuous sense. All commercial textbook writers would eventually stop trying to even break even on textbook-writing, pack up, and go home. Don't then delude yourself that this would mean more free textbooks. Any small increases would be a result of teachers having less choice, and thus being forced to contribute his own time in order to tailor the information to his students/teaching methods. That is not a good thing, especially considering the labour borne from such efforts is not aimed at progressing the book, so much as making private tweaks.
The excusionary aspect of copyright? What exclusionary aspect of copyright? It's always been an optional endeavour. This "limited mitigation factor", in fact, sinks pretty much any possible exclusionary factor.
Actually, tell a lie, there is one exclusionary factor. It's an unfortunate fact, but copyright begins to exclude other business models because it actually happens to be more successful than other business models. It produces more popular artworks in greater volume, and sustains the artist in the process. Artists prefer it, most customers prefer what they get from it, the only unfortunate part is the price, but many of us don't mind paying for the things we voluntarily decide to keep.
Your point is well taken. I have little doubt that back-scratching takes place. The proportion of times it happens, however, I'm less sure about. However, I would say that there would be plenty of teachers/professors who don't mind choosing based on the quality of the book and the price who would be interested in such a project.
People, learning independently of a teacher also buy textbooks. I, for example, am waiting on two cheap textbooks, nothing to do with my uni work, to arrive in the mail for some holiday reading (yeah, I know I'm a nerd; that's why I'm here). I would be happy to get an equivalent free textbook instead, if it were of decent quality.
Hell, we can even see demand here. There seems to be quite a bit of support for this idea. Besides, exactly how much demand does an open source project need? Surely the problem isn't that we have a bunch of willing and able people under the impression that people only want to pay for textbooks?
From your link:
I wouldn't exactly call it "open source". :)
Ah, if only the real world were as simple as that...
That's not quite true either. It's the nature of piracy that as soon as the pirates win, they lose, along with everyone else.
I'm sorry, but you'll have to provide better reasoning than simply "the market is not really free". Regulation is done with the purpose of making the free market work better, because without it, the freedom of the market becomes its own worst enemy. A good example of this is antitrust legislation, designed to correct the inherent imbalance of power between people and corporations. A similarly fine example is, as you mentioned, copyright, which prevents competition in distribution from cannibalising demand for new works, and thus causing the whole system to collapse. With these regulations, the free market can actually exist, and only then can it start functioning.
So, if you wish to show that my statement isn't the case here, I suggest you appeal to a specific regulation that is hindering the creation of open source textbooks. It certainly isn't copyright, since copyright can be revoked in full or in part.
The evidence that such textbooks are "impossible" (they're not really, more on that later) is that we know that they already have a more than ample demand (one that outstrips the competition due to their price), that they have a functioning free market, but they still don't exist. It simply means that people who can provide such a textbook are unwilling to do so. Perhaps being open source is one of those "requirements so unreasonable that no-one will be able to meet them".
But, I don't think such textbooks are "impossible" so much as unlikely. I think we simply need someone with some knowledge to take the initiative and start writing an open source textbook. I predict that if such a person starts, and advertises effectively over the internet (through blogs etc), then the open source textbook market would actually take off. I also predict that their information would be justifiably treated with suspicion, like Wikipedia is treated today, but will still be a valuable source of knowledge.
I know that they're jerks, and I would like to see some punishment handed down to them. However, as a higher priority, I'd like to see them reform, and I'd like to see that innocent people are not affected. Revenge is simply not a good enough reason to do something rash like abolish copyright. Such issues must be dealt with a clear mind, rational debate, and of course, quality evidence.
They're not an indicator of the quality of the product; they tell you what the movie is about (most of the time) and give you a rough idea of whether or not you'd be interested.
Whatever. If you don't want to look for decent reviews, then don't bitch to everyone about how you're 'forced' to pirate these movies.
Forget it. I was trying to make a subtle, pre-emptive counter to a point, but obviously it doesn't apply to you.
The pirate statistics, I would think, would be a highly variable estimation based on monitoring of activities on P2P networks and bittorrent over a short time, possibly coupled with sale drops. I don't know; I'm just speculating.
However, let me say that the best way to avoid becoming a piracy statistic is to not participate in piracy.
It doesn't work that way. We can't just simply "force" a product to exist. If it doesn't exist already, then that typically means there isn't a happy medium between the cost of providing such a service and the cost to the users of the service. That's the way that free market works; if it can be done, and people want it, then it usually is done. If it doesn't exist, especially if it is a service in high demand, like free knowledge, then it means that, most probably, it can't exist without massive subsidies, or slave labour.
But... where does Al Gore fit in this!?
50% Troll
50% Underrated
So appropriate.
Yep. Making it legit would eventually encourage people to get over their moral objections to acquiring free entertainment. So, perhaps there would always be the misguided, the stupid, and the unscrupulous to provide us with torrents without hesitation, but hopefully we can actually help people realise the harm they do by participating and encouraging such a system.
Well, why don't you try trailers or reviews? It typically works for me. Just find a reviewer or two who you can trust, and if it looks dodgy, then don't see it. God knows, with a 10% success rate, it's a wonder that you even bother any more. You don't want to see them, the creators don't want you to see them (if you're not going to spend the money), seriously, what's the point?
The RIAA and MPAA are a big problem for copyright supporters, since they are admittedly the most outspoken spokespersons for copyright, yet they represent everything wrong with copyright. Don't get me wrong, they also represent a whole lot of what is right with copyright, but oh so much that's wrong with it. There is the greed, there is hard bargains with artists, there are the no court appearance lawsuits, and there is the DRM, but at the same time, there is a lot more to copyright. There's the culture, the inspiration, even the images of celebrity and stardom that encourage others to participate. There's the satisfaction in knowing that you have some input, via the free market, in the art you experience.
We need to stop looking to scuttle this for petty revenge against the **AA. If the pirate party supports a reasonable, reformed copyright, and they understand exactly how much we owe copyright to date for our culture, then they have my vote, despite their name (I would check, but the page is slashdotted). If they wish to undermine copyright, if they are foolish enough to believe that, as the summary suggested, that sharing is somehow less damaging just because money isn't changing hands, then I suggest they give their party points some long hard thought. If they want to simply take down the **AA, then I will fight them every step of the way, because that is, frankly, a simply idiotic approach to change.
How would I go about it? I would leave it to the market. Copyright doesn't grant you a free pass to money. You first have to earn it through creation or investment, and even then, it still has to go through us regular people in order for it to make money. If we don't want the **AA to make money, then it won't. Pure and simple. Sure, they'll kick and scream, but with enough support, even the government will be forced to turn a deaf ear, lest their political careers be over.
... a system that doesn't accommodate for original works cannot possibly encourage derivative works.
Hey, I never knew that. Turns out you're right.
http://www.publaw.com/advantage.html
No, I didn't, but it's OK. It was obviously a misunderstanding.
I know that private trackers are possible, and I believe you when you say that they used to be legal in Sweden. When I talked about posting trackers, I was referring to the kind where you share with potentially hundreds or even thousands of anonymous strangers, and that, even under the most lenient copyright laws, is not legal. The only reason I spoke up is that Aldenissin truly misrepresented the problem (probably out of laziness more than anything else).
Yeah right. I'm sure private trackers are what all the fuss is about.
Sure, but posting torrent tracker? That's was never part of the deal. Unless, perhaps you attach a note saying, "Only to be shared by my friends". ;)
You don't know how that sense of hilarity will affect the child! In her first sexual experience, she might end up utterly crushing the ego of an emotionally fragile, spotty teenage boy!
No, but seriously, the issue is more complicated than that. The extent that viewing sex will affect the child is dependent on the reaction of the parents. If they're more conservative on such issues, and react negatively, then it will affect them negatively.
Some would blame the parents for this, but I don't see how this is different from a child experiencing any other kind of taboo; when they do, and the parents react, we don't usually blame the parents for having such values in the first place.