Exactly. And imagine how much less insurance companies would have to pay if every car was a known death trap. Those who would be stupid enough to drive recklessly would be eliminated quickly from the gene pool, and everyone else would drive much more safely.
I never said that. I just don't see the government scheming to take my rights away. I do value them, I just see larger threats to them from other (similar) sources, like, for example, people who want me to give up my freedoms in order to fight terrorism. That's not the government by the way, that's just people who are naturally afraid. They mean me no harm, but they want more harm to my freedom than most western governments out there.
OK, let's think about this. Compare the relative number of times there has been an active hazard travelling at over 80mph to the number of teenage casualties where speeding is a factor. Let's face it: there aren't too many Indiana-Jones-style rolling balls of rock going 90mph on our freeways these days, but there are a lot of teen deaths on the roads.
Tell me something. With all the safety features that have been added to cars in the last 30 years or so, from seat belts to air bags, all peddled as something that would keep our insurance rates from going up, how come everyone's auto insurance keeps going up, *never* down.
Because it's car insurance not life insurance. These features make no difference to the number of accidents, and no difference the amount of money required by insurance companies to pay for these accidents. They're there simply for your own safety, and do nothing for the well-being of the car.
This thing is different. It doesn't just protect you from the worst, it tries to protect you (or your loved ones) from the worst.
See? This is what I mean. You ask a reasonable question, and all you get is some vacuous answer along the lines of "I know I'm right, and I don't need to bother with any attempt at logic". I've never actually heard an adequate reason why people fear this sort of thing so much, and no, "politicians are just evil" doesn't cut it. It seems like the kind of thing that, without some kind of review from your peers, can turn into an automatic knee-jerk reaction, divorced from any reasons that justified its existence in the first place, that is assuming they even existed in the first place (I haven't heard any to date).
Once the control has saturated the various markets and has become accepted by the people as normal, the government will take over.
Why?
It's often contended here that the government will change the fabric of society and oppress us the first chance they get, but I don't hear too many rational reasons why they would, and plenty rational reasons why they wouldn't. For example, I was not under the impression that modern politicians had the requisite courage to bring any real change to anything significant. If there really is some significant number of politicians out there in the current system who would risk it all to give themselves more power, how come there aren't more politicians who are risking it all to make tough, potentially unpopular decisions? So far, the stereotype of the cowardly, poll-driven politician has rung far truer than the power-hungry conspiring type. Not that a single politician who fits that description would be able to do much in his short time in his position.
Another point is that creating and maintaining a society is difficult, expensive, risky, and they are often unstable to boot. Doubly so for a country rooted in democracy, and government bending over backwards for popular opinion. Most people with basic intelligence can figure out that such a venture is stupid, and that the timeline would probably exceed their own life anyway. I understand that you see this as a possible lowering of that barrier, but, if think about it, it's not exactly oppression they'd be accustoming to, it would be surveillance. The slippery slope isn't even going in the right direction.
Anyway, in conclusion, your fears are IMHO somewhere between laughable and irrational. Nothing personal though.
You cannot attribute any financial loss at all to the pirates. It's simply a theoretical loss. If all pirates would never buy a single thing they pirated, and I realize this is an assumption, their net cost to the content distributors would be $0.
But that's not true. In fact, it is statistically measurable. You essentially multiply the probability of buying music, possibly factoring in certain other factors like what kind infringement it is (albums will be more likely to have resulted in a sale than singles) by the price of the music.
It's a gross oversimplification to say that we can't count it, because we actually can, both in the sense that it's possible and the sense that it's OK. The far, far, far greater injustice would be to sweep all infringement everything into the "it can't be proved" pile, and count it as its best case scenario. If anything, being the wrongdoers in the relationship, they should be punished for the worst possible case.
Actually, I don't really care whether or not WMDs existed in Iraq in the first place. I'm more irritated with the guy who was essentially accusing anyone who believes that WMDs did exist, and who posts anonymously (as if anyone would post with their accounts when differing views earns you nothing at best, and several flamebait mods at worst) of being a paid shill. It's a classic ideology vs fact struggle, one that I've had to struggle against from time to time.
Don't think for a second you're immune! Everyone has opinions, many of which they can justify, but not prove. As soon as you start actually believing something, as soon as you give yourself some kind of moral code, you are vulnerable to (and will experience sometime) cognitive dissonance.
In fact as soon as you think that you are immune (or even resistant), you have a concept of yourself that could well override fact someday!
laws against stealing didn't come in response to someone saying "hey if we follow the idea of supply and demand, people might steal things!"
I never suggested it did. I'm just saying that we don't have to enshrine supply and demand, and forgo better things just because supply and demand is the alternative. There are several good arguments why supply and demand are actively detrimental to the art trade. We don't have to go down that path if we don't want to.
Just thinking aloud here so there may be flaws in my reasoning and/or it may not apply in real life.
No, you're completely right. That's exactly what the RIAA does. The problem is, apart from the payola, it's all legitimate competition. Some people may look at it as leverage to keelhaul the RIAA, but in practice, it doesn't work like that. If we sink the RIAA with that justification, or with some flimsy pretext to cover it, then we essentially tell every other business to beware, because everything they've worked to build could be taken away from them in the bat of an eyelid. Suddenly there's no money in investing in business, and the economy screeches to a halt. Even dismantling them over the lawsuits and the lobbying would be, at the very least, a bold move, because they were still operating within the law. Perhaps the privacy breaches from MediaSentry (or whatever it's called) would be the strongest justification, but I don't think it would be enough.
Besides, it's not really that much of a problem. It is still very possible to find less popular artists, signed or independent, for those who don't like the top 40.
You can think of the name as a test. Those who can can look past it and look at the merits of my argument get a grain of respect. Those who can't, well, I'm pretty sure they're not worth my time.
Theft includes 'intent to permanently deprive'. Therefore it's not a good analogy for copyright infringement.
Well, it's not like most infringers plan to reimburse the artists they infringe. And no, buying services that have their own price don't count.
Anyway, for the record, theft wasn't an analogy for copyright infringement. I had a sinking feeling that combining the two terms in the same paragraph would produce this response.
Before you are inevitably modded up, I just want to point out that we were discussing whether the RIAA is actually helping artists. Whether they should be destroyed for their behaviour is a different matter. One for the courts.
they do not aim to succeed in anything. they just want to repress you and make you do what they want.
No, they want to suck your blood! That makes about as much sense!
The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the RIAA contributes anything toward the ability of musicians to make a living off their music.
Actually, that doesn't matter. If the RIAA is not doing anything good, then they will fail. They will get no artists, and no customers. They will fail and it will be no skin off your nose. There's no need for intervention on behalf of the artists, and those who enjoy some of the RIAA's music, as we can and will decide what we want for ourselves.
Given the numerous horror stories about just how much industry parasites suck out of the music buyer's dollar on its journey from the buyer's wallet to the musician's bank account, it's quite reasonable to believe that it is more difficult to make a living as a professional musician with the RIAA around than it would be in the absence of such an organization.
I really don't think so. How could it possibly be easier for artists without the choice of being with a big label? I simply don't see the logic there, unless you assume that artists can't make decisions for themselves.
No amount of laws or regulations can overcome supply and demand in the long run. The RIAA relied on preferential laws and regulations to maintain their control over distribution. Recorded music has a near-infinite supply in terms of distribution online. Hence the price of it should fall to nearly zero
I'm not so sure. I think it's a matter of the law. We have several laws, most of which are observed and obeyed that go against raw supply and demand. The most basic of which is stealing. By the same logic, we couldn't expect people to pay for a plasma TV when they can steal a perfectly good one for a lot less, but thanks to certain property laws, their enforcement, and the fact that their existence has penetrated into our collective morality, people generally go for the more expensive option.
There are real and very good reasons why we don't let ourselves be ruled by supply and demand, many of which apply here. The difference here is that copyright law is the new kid on the block hasn't had the time nor the education to penetrate public morality.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have to like it, they just have to blame the insurance companies and not you. ;)
Exactly. And imagine how much less insurance companies would have to pay if every car was a known death trap. Those who would be stupid enough to drive recklessly would be eliminated quickly from the gene pool, and everyone else would drive much more safely.
I never said that. I just don't see the government scheming to take my rights away. I do value them, I just see larger threats to them from other (similar) sources, like, for example, people who want me to give up my freedoms in order to fight terrorism. That's not the government by the way, that's just people who are naturally afraid. They mean me no harm, but they want more harm to my freedom than most western governments out there.
OK, let's think about this. Compare the relative number of times there has been an active hazard travelling at over 80mph to the number of teenage casualties where speeding is a factor. Let's face it: there aren't too many Indiana-Jones-style rolling balls of rock going 90mph on our freeways these days, but there are a lot of teen deaths on the roads.
Nice title.
Because it's car insurance not life insurance. These features make no difference to the number of accidents, and no difference the amount of money required by insurance companies to pay for these accidents. They're there simply for your own safety, and do nothing for the well-being of the car.
This thing is different. It doesn't just protect you from the worst, it tries to protect you (or your loved ones) from the worst.
Don't forget insurance breaks. It's pretty simple to tell them that the reason why you're doing this is purely the money.
... if your son knows his way around a car like he does the internet. That's not so common nowadays, in case you were wondering.
See? This is what I mean. You ask a reasonable question, and all you get is some vacuous answer along the lines of "I know I'm right, and I don't need to bother with any attempt at logic". I've never actually heard an adequate reason why people fear this sort of thing so much, and no, "politicians are just evil" doesn't cut it. It seems like the kind of thing that, without some kind of review from your peers, can turn into an automatic knee-jerk reaction, divorced from any reasons that justified its existence in the first place, that is assuming they even existed in the first place (I haven't heard any to date).
(Offtopic rant alert!)
Why?
It's often contended here that the government will change the fabric of society and oppress us the first chance they get, but I don't hear too many rational reasons why they would, and plenty rational reasons why they wouldn't. For example, I was not under the impression that modern politicians had the requisite courage to bring any real change to anything significant. If there really is some significant number of politicians out there in the current system who would risk it all to give themselves more power, how come there aren't more politicians who are risking it all to make tough, potentially unpopular decisions? So far, the stereotype of the cowardly, poll-driven politician has rung far truer than the power-hungry conspiring type. Not that a single politician who fits that description would be able to do much in his short time in his position.
Another point is that creating and maintaining a society is difficult, expensive, risky, and they are often unstable to boot. Doubly so for a country rooted in democracy, and government bending over backwards for popular opinion. Most people with basic intelligence can figure out that such a venture is stupid, and that the timeline would probably exceed their own life anyway. I understand that you see this as a possible lowering of that barrier, but, if think about it, it's not exactly oppression they'd be accustoming to, it would be surveillance. The slippery slope isn't even going in the right direction.
Anyway, in conclusion, your fears are IMHO somewhere between laughable and irrational. Nothing personal though.
From the "Important Stuff" written below the old comment-posting form:
You were fairly warned.
I wonder if George Lucas, or whoever wrote that line, realised how funny it was.
Oh yeah? Well, only the Sith deal in absolutes!
Not so funny now, is it?
But that's not true. In fact, it is statistically measurable. You essentially multiply the probability of buying music, possibly factoring in certain other factors like what kind infringement it is (albums will be more likely to have resulted in a sale than singles) by the price of the music.
It's a gross oversimplification to say that we can't count it, because we actually can, both in the sense that it's possible and the sense that it's OK. The far, far, far greater injustice would be to sweep all infringement everything into the "it can't be proved" pile, and count it as its best case scenario. If anything, being the wrongdoers in the relationship, they should be punished for the worst possible case.
Or maybe he's not a fan of video game violence, and genuinely wants to make the world a better place. Just a thought, y'know?
Actually, I don't really care whether or not WMDs existed in Iraq in the first place. I'm more irritated with the guy who was essentially accusing anyone who believes that WMDs did exist, and who posts anonymously (as if anyone would post with their accounts when differing views earns you nothing at best, and several flamebait mods at worst) of being a paid shill. It's a classic ideology vs fact struggle, one that I've had to struggle against from time to time.
Riiight. Because no-one (or at least no-one smart) could possibly believe that WMDs might have existed?
How appropriate to have this conversation here. It's almost frighteningly on-topic.
Don't think for a second you're immune! Everyone has opinions, many of which they can justify, but not prove. As soon as you start actually believing something, as soon as you give yourself some kind of moral code, you are vulnerable to (and will experience sometime) cognitive dissonance.
In fact as soon as you think that you are immune (or even resistant), you have a concept of yourself that could well override fact someday!
I never suggested it did. I'm just saying that we don't have to enshrine supply and demand, and forgo better things just because supply and demand is the alternative. There are several good arguments why supply and demand are actively detrimental to the art trade. We don't have to go down that path if we don't want to.
No, you're completely right. That's exactly what the RIAA does. The problem is, apart from the payola, it's all legitimate competition. Some people may look at it as leverage to keelhaul the RIAA, but in practice, it doesn't work like that. If we sink the RIAA with that justification, or with some flimsy pretext to cover it, then we essentially tell every other business to beware, because everything they've worked to build could be taken away from them in the bat of an eyelid. Suddenly there's no money in investing in business, and the economy screeches to a halt. Even dismantling them over the lawsuits and the lobbying would be, at the very least, a bold move, because they were still operating within the law. Perhaps the privacy breaches from MediaSentry (or whatever it's called) would be the strongest justification, but I don't think it would be enough.
Besides, it's not really that much of a problem. It is still very possible to find less popular artists, signed or independent, for those who don't like the top 40.
You can think of the name as a test. Those who can can look past it and look at the merits of my argument get a grain of respect. Those who can't, well, I'm pretty sure they're not worth my time.
Well, it's not like most infringers plan to reimburse the artists they infringe. And no, buying services that have their own price don't count.
Anyway, for the record, theft wasn't an analogy for copyright infringement. I had a sinking feeling that combining the two terms in the same paragraph would produce this response.
Before you are inevitably modded up, I just want to point out that we were discussing whether the RIAA is actually helping artists. Whether they should be destroyed for their behaviour is a different matter. One for the courts.
No, they want to suck your blood! That makes about as much sense!
Actually, that doesn't matter. If the RIAA is not doing anything good, then they will fail. They will get no artists, and no customers. They will fail and it will be no skin off your nose. There's no need for intervention on behalf of the artists, and those who enjoy some of the RIAA's music, as we can and will decide what we want for ourselves.
I really don't think so. How could it possibly be easier for artists without the choice of being with a big label? I simply don't see the logic there, unless you assume that artists can't make decisions for themselves.
I'm not so sure. I think it's a matter of the law. We have several laws, most of which are observed and obeyed that go against raw supply and demand. The most basic of which is stealing. By the same logic, we couldn't expect people to pay for a plasma TV when they can steal a perfectly good one for a lot less, but thanks to certain property laws, their enforcement, and the fact that their existence has penetrated into our collective morality, people generally go for the more expensive option.
There are real and very good reasons why we don't let ourselves be ruled by supply and demand, many of which apply here. The difference here is that copyright law is the new kid on the block hasn't had the time nor the education to penetrate public morality.