I mean, the fact that some large corporation in the US can use the American government* to pressure Sweden to have TPB shut down DOESN'T SOUND LIKE FREEDOM TO ME.
Exactly. No it doesn't, which makes the morality in this all the more confusing for some. Thinking about it, murder is freedom for the murderer, but we all seem to agree that it's not evil to legislate against it. It seems reasonable that we legislate, at times, against freedom (in fact, that's all we really legislate against - chaos is the true freedom).
We legislate against freedom to secure something better. Not better than freedom as a whole, but certain lesser freedoms which, in being exercised, exclude the existence of something better. While we may want the freedom to access our culture freely, the freedom to do so actually excludes the long term health of said culture.*
Until we have a practical alternative to copyright, there is no point granting ourselves the freedom to share artworks, because we may run out of new artworks to share.
* As far as anyone has been able to determine, which is not for lack of trying. Plenty of people have searched for an alternative that works acceptably for all forms of art, but no-one has been successful. For example, live performances have been suggested, but that makes no mention of what electronic music is supposed to do, for example.
Since when did legal == feasible? Courts have enough collective intelligence to uphold a law, even if its opponents come up with neat little scapegoats (like the **AAs).
This isn't a case of legislating morality, this is a case of legislating intelligence despite growing fringe opposition.
You know, I like to think I have more restraint and free will than to be "pushed over the edge" towards gluttonous and self-destructive entertainment excesses by Obama's taste in lawyers. But hey, free will and the world's culture is a small price to pay for freedom from responsibility for your actions, right?
No, it sounds like the most expensive, yet useless education ever devised. You lose a lot of money, and you learn one way NOT to lose your money, when it's far too late.
I think you'll find that the "little guy" gets caught far less often than the big guy. In fact, I would say, even with good lawyers and lots of money, the little guy still has less chance of being prosecuted than the big guy. And, I think the little guys who are so inclined, know that and callously exploit that.
But hey, why get in the way of nice little stereotype?
I guess it would seem that way to people who frequently (if not exclusively) read sites like Slashdot who report on these cases in such a biased light. The problem you're facing is that, as far as the courts are concerned, intellectual property infringement is a serious developing problem, and sympathy is currently firmly with the copyright holder. They worked to build their empire, and aside from technically legal payola, they haven't really abused it. On the other hand, there are millions of people leeching from them, every day abusing them. It's no wonder the courts sided (initially) with them.
I know from experience that the concept of someone rich having the moral high ground over the common man is a difficult concept to grasp, and it's becoming increasingly difficult as the MPAA and RIAA insist on, more out of desperation than anything else, constantly abusing their positions of power in order to cheaply nip the problem in the bud. But, despite their shifty tactics, they are being wronged, and there needs to be a solution. Not just for them, but for their competitors and the entire industries they represent.
If you object to them, but still want to help out, start buying only indie works, and ignore the **AAs. It's not a wrong against them to support their competitors, and in fact, it's healthy competition. Who knows, we may see kinder, more gentle **AAs? It is, however, wrong to take a slice of their intellectual properties' value for yourself without paying for it first, and this will only make the courts side more with them over you. Who knows, we may see the **AA's every whim realised in legislature?
You're right, there is no immediate material cost for getting a copyright. However, defending a copyright is a different story. There's no point in having a copyright if you can't adequately defend it. So, yes, having a useful copyright can be very expensive.
Patents destroy creativity in Software, but also in all Life Sciences.
Say what? Software patents "destroy creativity"? Software patents can block your program from being distributed, but even assuming that blocking "creative" programs is equivalent to destroying creativity, it would only destroy the kind of creativity that produces code already created and patented.
Not that I support software patents, by any means, it's just that your argument is ridiculous. And since you deign not to elaborate on your other arguments, I can only assume that they're all ridiculous as well.
Maybe you can, but for me - at least - songs are not easily interchangeable.
It's an illusion. Certain songs really are that interchangeable, yes, including the ones you like (unless your tastes fit in some niche that only.01% of the population likes, or something like that). You may look at your favourite artists' latest releases, and say "I really want to buy these albums", but that doesn't mean you won't find satisfaction anywhere else. It makes less sense, statistically, than assuming you have only one potential soulmate in the entire world.
Now, that doesn't mean you have to change. You're probably happy enough with your selection. But, if these artists start abusing your patronage, you may have to consider becoming a more savvy music consumer. It's not easy, but copyright monopolies are hardly to blame if you don't try to seek out competition.
With music none of this applies. A specific song is in effect a monopoly and no simple substitutes exist. (Well, with the possible exception of the overly generic 'pop' that is being produced and shoveled out, but that is a whole other story).
Like I said in a previous post somewhere else on the thread, we aren't looking for a specific sequence of sonic waves, we're looking for satisfaction from music. Sure, you can't get the exact same song from any other artist (you can get it from different vendors, though), but you can get the same satisfaction, perhaps even more, from searching outside your comfort zone.
That's why music is interchangeable. Not because it's a substandard art form, but because love for music is universal, and not tied exclusively to a handful of bands.
But there are other outlets. There's Amazon, or CDs, or other music stores I can't be bothered looking for. There's plenty of competition.
So I guess you're referring to music itself, not music stores. But music has a very high degree of competition. There are many, many pieces of music out there being produced every year, and that's not even counting the enormous back-catalogue.
So I guess you're referring to a single piece of music. Yes, there isn't anyone else who makes the exact same piece of music, but like I said, all products are slightly different. The important thing is that they're comparable and fungible, which pieces of music actually are, despite what die-hard fans of certain bands would have you believe.
I really don't see any more of a monopoly here than I do anywhere else.
Sure, if you compare two songs, they're always going to be different, which is not so for bread. But, on the other hand, most people don't look for a specific sequence of sonic frequencies when they buy music. They want something they'll enjoy, and often they associate that exclusively with a handful of sources/artists, when, for a vast majority of people, there are plenty of other sources that they will enjoy just as much.
Now, I'm not saying they have to change, but as long as they don't, they will be gouged on music. There's nothing more we can do while people refuse to be savvy about their music purchases. If people arbitrarily decided to only buy a handful of different types of bread, come hell or high prices, then bread would also be expensive.
Being arrogantly ignorant makes you wrong. Being humbly ignorant makes you tentatively wrong. Being ignorant deliberately to incite strong reactions makes you a troll.
There is no competition between different labels to sell the same product (song) so why would they drop the price on a desired product (song) ?
Because:
a) You don't have to buy the song. You can keep the money and spend it on something better. b) You can buy other music with that same money. There's no reason why you can't get similar satisfaction from a different song.
When I go to bakery that bakes their own breads, I know going into it that I'm not going to be able to find that exact same bread anywhere else. Yet, for some reason, they don't charge $100 per loaf. Strange.
The customers have spoken: they like XP, and find it so good that they do not even bother to upgrade nor switch to the much more modern Linux distributions that are available already for years.
I think there's more to it than that. There are plenty of reasons not to switch to Linux for many people, and XP being adequate is but one of them.
Vista flopped
Which doesn't make a trend.
Win7 (or whatever it's going to be called upon release) is also not getting a too warm reception so far.
As opposed to the grass-roots hype surrounding XP before its release.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. No it doesn't, which makes the morality in this all the more confusing for some. Thinking about it, murder is freedom for the murderer, but we all seem to agree that it's not evil to legislate against it. It seems reasonable that we legislate, at times, against freedom (in fact, that's all we really legislate against - chaos is the true freedom).
We legislate against freedom to secure something better. Not better than freedom as a whole, but certain lesser freedoms which, in being exercised, exclude the existence of something better. While we may want the freedom to access our culture freely, the freedom to do so actually excludes the long term health of said culture.*
Until we have a practical alternative to copyright, there is no point granting ourselves the freedom to share artworks, because we may run out of new artworks to share.
* As far as anyone has been able to determine, which is not for lack of trying. Plenty of people have searched for an alternative that works acceptably for all forms of art, but no-one has been successful. For example, live performances have been suggested, but that makes no mention of what electronic music is supposed to do, for example.
Since when did legal == feasible? Courts have enough collective intelligence to uphold a law, even if its opponents come up with neat little scapegoats (like the **AAs).
This isn't a case of legislating morality, this is a case of legislating intelligence despite growing fringe opposition.
No, it's not, by the sounds of it...
You know, I like to think I have more restraint and free will than to be "pushed over the edge" towards gluttonous and self-destructive entertainment excesses by Obama's taste in lawyers. But hey, free will and the world's culture is a small price to pay for freedom from responsibility for your actions, right?
Well, obviously because no-one spoke with you first. ;)
No, it sounds like the most expensive, yet useless education ever devised. You lose a lot of money, and you learn one way NOT to lose your money, when it's far too late.
Sort of. One hidden wrong and one documented wrong makes two documented wrongs... ... which is right, I guess.
I think you'll find that the "little guy" gets caught far less often than the big guy. In fact, I would say, even with good lawyers and lots of money, the little guy still has less chance of being prosecuted than the big guy. And, I think the little guys who are so inclined, know that and callously exploit that.
But hey, why get in the way of nice little stereotype?
I guess it would seem that way to people who frequently (if not exclusively) read sites like Slashdot who report on these cases in such a biased light. The problem you're facing is that, as far as the courts are concerned, intellectual property infringement is a serious developing problem, and sympathy is currently firmly with the copyright holder. They worked to build their empire, and aside from technically legal payola, they haven't really abused it. On the other hand, there are millions of people leeching from them, every day abusing them. It's no wonder the courts sided (initially) with them.
I know from experience that the concept of someone rich having the moral high ground over the common man is a difficult concept to grasp, and it's becoming increasingly difficult as the MPAA and RIAA insist on, more out of desperation than anything else, constantly abusing their positions of power in order to cheaply nip the problem in the bud. But, despite their shifty tactics, they are being wronged, and there needs to be a solution. Not just for them, but for their competitors and the entire industries they represent.
If you object to them, but still want to help out, start buying only indie works, and ignore the **AAs. It's not a wrong against them to support their competitors, and in fact, it's healthy competition. Who knows, we may see kinder, more gentle **AAs? It is, however, wrong to take a slice of their intellectual properties' value for yourself without paying for it first, and this will only make the courts side more with them over you. Who knows, we may see the **AA's every whim realised in legislature?
Unfortunately, the same thing works replacing "no religion" with "homogenised religion".
You're right, there is no immediate material cost for getting a copyright. However, defending a copyright is a different story. There's no point in having a copyright if you can't adequately defend it. So, yes, having a useful copyright can be very expensive.
Say what? Software patents "destroy creativity"? Software patents can block your program from being distributed, but even assuming that blocking "creative" programs is equivalent to destroying creativity, it would only destroy the kind of creativity that produces code already created and patented.
Not that I support software patents, by any means, it's just that your argument is ridiculous. And since you deign not to elaborate on your other arguments, I can only assume that they're all ridiculous as well.
It's an illusion. Certain songs really are that interchangeable, yes, including the ones you like (unless your tastes fit in some niche that only .01% of the population likes, or something like that). You may look at your favourite artists' latest releases, and say "I really want to buy these albums", but that doesn't mean you won't find satisfaction anywhere else. It makes less sense, statistically, than assuming you have only one potential soulmate in the entire world.
Now, that doesn't mean you have to change. You're probably happy enough with your selection. But, if these artists start abusing your patronage, you may have to consider becoming a more savvy music consumer. It's not easy, but copyright monopolies are hardly to blame if you don't try to seek out competition.
Like I said in a previous post somewhere else on the thread, we aren't looking for a specific sequence of sonic waves, we're looking for satisfaction from music. Sure, you can't get the exact same song from any other artist (you can get it from different vendors, though), but you can get the same satisfaction, perhaps even more, from searching outside your comfort zone.
That's why music is interchangeable. Not because it's a substandard art form, but because love for music is universal, and not tied exclusively to a handful of bands.
No.
... I'm a climate engineer!
You're welcome. :)
But there are other outlets. There's Amazon, or CDs, or other music stores I can't be bothered looking for. There's plenty of competition.
So I guess you're referring to music itself, not music stores. But music has a very high degree of competition. There are many, many pieces of music out there being produced every year, and that's not even counting the enormous back-catalogue.
So I guess you're referring to a single piece of music. Yes, there isn't anyone else who makes the exact same piece of music, but like I said, all products are slightly different. The important thing is that they're comparable and fungible, which pieces of music actually are, despite what die-hard fans of certain bands would have you believe.
I really don't see any more of a monopoly here than I do anywhere else.
Sure, if you compare two songs, they're always going to be different, which is not so for bread. But, on the other hand, most people don't look for a specific sequence of sonic frequencies when they buy music. They want something they'll enjoy, and often they associate that exclusively with a handful of sources/artists, when, for a vast majority of people, there are plenty of other sources that they will enjoy just as much.
Now, I'm not saying they have to change, but as long as they don't, they will be gouged on music. There's nothing more we can do while people refuse to be savvy about their music purchases. If people arbitrarily decided to only buy a handful of different types of bread, come hell or high prices, then bread would also be expensive.
Being arrogantly ignorant makes you wrong.
Being humbly ignorant makes you tentatively wrong.
Being ignorant deliberately to incite strong reactions makes you a troll.
In this case, new music is a scarcity. So new tracks should be priced higher than older tracks. Is that what you meant?
iTunes is now completely DRM-free, at least, for the music section.
By the way, can anyone tell me why this guy is a troll? Is being humbly ignorant of the latest trends sufficient to make you a troll these days?
Because:
a) You don't have to buy the song. You can keep the money and spend it on something better.
b) You can buy other music with that same money. There's no reason why you can't get similar satisfaction from a different song.
When I go to bakery that bakes their own breads, I know going into it that I'm not going to be able to find that exact same bread anywhere else. Yet, for some reason, they don't charge $100 per loaf. Strange.
Yup. Same here.
Is that right, Anonymous Coward?
Ugh.
I think there's more to it than that. There are plenty of reasons not to switch to Linux for many people, and XP being adequate is but one of them.
Which doesn't make a trend.
As opposed to the grass-roots hype surrounding XP before its release.