you can't support, or let businesses get away with, unethical predatory lending practices.
Well, if everyone avoided contracts that they couldn't understand (or couldn't be bothered to understand) then that particular unethical predatory practice would bite the dust pretty quickly.
I know that it gives the phone company the right to:
1. Charge me huge fees for non-routine items like data transfer - especially outside of a coverage area. And it might not be obvious if I'm outside that coverage area.
2. Require binding arbitration of any disputes.
3. Require me to keep secret any settlement or judgment I get against the phone company so that others don't realize that they can win in court.
That doesn't make any of that legal. I never "agreed" with anybody on those terms.
Your signature says otherwise. It doesn't matter whether or not you signed because you really, really wanted a mobile phone contract, or whether you genuinely feel that those terms were justified. The appropriate way to express your dissatisfaction with the agreement was to find a different provider with acceptable terms, or if the market couldn't provide that, then not agree to any at all, "convenience" be damned.
Or, you could just agree, and pay attention to your billing plan.
This bill proposes to make a criminal of me and virtually everyone I know.
It doesn't want to make you a criminal. No-one wants to make you a criminal. They want to make piracy a criminal activity, and they hope you won't become a criminal.
Piracy robs artists of their legally granted rights. Why shouldn't it be a (white collar) crime? The worst that'll happen is the burden of finding and prosecuting offenders, which the record/movie industry has devastatingly mishandled, will fall to the government, who at least you can elect.
If the **AA was caught distributing small amounts of kiddie porn, it would be scandalous, but not fatal to the company. I'm pretty sure the courts (if not many of the public in general) would be lenient on them since a) it was not their intention, b) they never viewed/stored any of it, and c) they didn't share much of it at all.
Nuh-uh. Artists (and their unborn children) don't need money. Haven't you heard? They can just sustain themselves on the music, man. They like music so much that they'll be willing to starve, or get a part-time day job (unlike me), and dedicate all their free time to creating REALLY GOOD pieces of music! Even if it means total poverty!
In fact, the RIAA's money is turning lots of good artists away. Lot's of people who really truly do prefer forced poverty, rather than the option of all those distracting riches. Yes, taking the control out of artist's hands is the whole point of this! They want it. I, uhh, we want it! It's definitely NOT just me wanting free stuff. How dare you even suggest it?
File sharing isn't illegal in the same way it isn't illegal for a company to release product that explodes randomly in a big fiery explosion, obliterating everything in a 100 metre radius. Technically no, but for all intents and purposes, yes.
Besides, we could always make it illegal, which would be the best way to stop these ridiculous lawsuits while giving the RIAA and their artists the payment they deserve. Well, second best way, considering this whole thing would be over if everyone just stopped sharing copyrighted works.
Hate to break it to you, but your comment isn't exactly science itself. There's experiment, no research, no study, no reproducible results. It essentially boils down to you saying, ironically enough, "my culture is better than yours!"
How do you know? Have you worked in or with local governments "just about everywhere"? Or are you just presenting some random libellous navel-gazing as fact?
Honestly, I can't tell if you're ripping off the government, people who hate the government, the RIAA, people who hate the RIAA, conspiracy theorists, or all five.
Oh what, because you think they terrorise people for political gain? The real terrorist were the people hijacking the planes in 9/11. They were the ones who shocked and frightened the nation in the first place. The government, while benefiting politically from this, was also responding to the fear already out there in the public. They would be lousy politicians and lousy leaders if they didn't do something about that fear.
Without knowing exactly what went on inside the heads of the politicians, all I can say is this: everything they have done has been in the name of alleviating that fear. It's more been the press's position to use and intensify fear to sell their media, and consequently politicians have had their work cut out for them.
In other words, I think you have reversed causation, and you are targeting politicians simply because they are the easiest target.
No you didn't. You just asserted it. There's a difference. The difference is supporting arguments.
... you say right before rebutting my supporting argument. Besides, I was asking a question. I was sceptical that the OP had considered the possibility that all those criteria for a better music industry were deliverable. If you want evidence of that assertion, go read my original post. I think you'll find a question mark in there somewhere.
why do you assert that a wider catalog, a selection of formats, and/or quality music must necessarily cost more money.
First answer me this: why do you insist on putting words into my mouth? Not to mention asserting that I'm asserting something with no supporting arguments whatsoever to back your assertion up? And then accusing me of not providing supporting arguments? And then picking apart my supporting arguments in the next paragraph? While you think of an answer to my question, I'll answer yours.
I don't assert that wider catalogue, selection of formats, and sound quality will necessarily cost more money. I'm saying that there is plenty of demand for this kind of thing, and in lieu of actually having inside looks into accounting at major labels, I suggest there is a real possibility that the reason why don't already have this kind of thing is because they've estimated that people aren't prepared to pay for whatever costs implementing these things will incur. I don't know what these costs are, but it's a far, far, better explanation than dismissing this all as evil shenanigans for evil's sake from a corporate conglomerate.
However, since I sense that giving this reasonable explanation will not be enough, and you would probably want some pointless, largely uninformed speculation about what some of these costs may be, I'll oblige.
A wider catalogue is probably the biggest drain out of the ones you mentioned. It requires greater risks, greater resources, more paychecks (to new staff, not just new artists), and there's only a certain amount of money spent on music to go around (but since you know the phrase "basic economics", I'm sure you picked that up). In other words, the market is saturated. More artists provides more choice, but for every 1 to 1000 artists you choose, many more will miss out. The only way it could work is to raise prices to subsidise the less popular artists, but of course, there would have to be more management to distribute such pay. All in all, it would raise music prices, more than people would be (on average) prepared to pay. So you see, in this case, even though the people want greater choice, they don't want to pay for it, and thus they won't get it in the foreseeable future.
As for formats and quality, I believe DRM has a significant effect on casual piracy. Not the kind where you and your friends burn copies of new CDs for each other every time someone gets a new one, but the kind where a person copies a CD for himself once in a blue moon, when he hears it and likes it over at a friend's house. I believe I heard somewhere that casual piracy makes a significant proportion of actual lost sales to the RIAA, but DON'T quote me on that one. If we let people choose formats, specifically unencumbered free formats, we may see an increase in piracy, which would raise costs slightly.
As for quality choice, there's bandwidth issues, and that's about it.
So there you go. I hope by now you understand my cynicism about this whole music industry reform thing. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.
We were actually talking about code that was previously free, but somehow is now not. You can't copyright free code again to stop it circulating, and you can hardly call it a trade secret when it has been circulating the net for some time (not to mention the copyright belongs to someone else).
You're hardly warmbait, never mind flamebait.
Maybe that might tell you that I'm not actually posting a flamebait? No? I guess my name means that all my posts are automatic attempts at flamebait, huh. As for you, your obvious attempt at being cowardly has failed miserably.
Even though it wasn't really an assertion, I actually did support it. It's what everyone wants, and, most likely, we aren't getting it because it costs more. Why? Because that's why we don't get most things. Companies are happy to provide anything you want, so long as it doesn't produce a net loss. Net losses can be offset by higher prices. The question is, whether or not people actually want it enough to pay that much more for it.
That's the reason why the RIAA doesn't provide all those things. It's not because they're evil, or that they enjoy getting off on being withholding, it's because while (some) consumers complain loudly about this stuff, to actually change and provide all those things, there are costs that have to be offset. Expensive costs that have to be footed by the consumer.
I would love to see a modified GPL which limits the use of SW it covers to non-commercial use but allows companies who contribute ( according to some key/function etc..) to include it in their products/use it for their commercial purposes.
You can do whatever you want. There's no copyright on the GPL, and you may modify it however you want. However, I would be careful about losing the concept of "free" software to some anti-corporatist ideology.
The GPL keeps you from taking my code and locking it up in some proprietary application where I won't get to use it. You seem to be under the unsupported belief that I should let you.
How exactly can you lock up code? The code will still be distributable no matter how many proprietary projects use it. The real question is, "should we allow companies (or anyone) to profit from code without giving something back?"
He said what they want not what they currently have.
WTF? He said that's what they want, but mentioned nothing about what they have. He also said in the title "DRM was just a means to an end" and inferred that the end he was talking about was "to pay every time you watch or listen to [the RIAA/MPAA's] media". Then you come up with some unlikely and quite convoluted explanation of what that AC really meant, by inserting details where he obviously felt he didn't have to spell them out, and then accusing me of failing reading comprehension. I repeat: WTF?
I maintain that my point (well, snide remark) is still valid. DRM was not a means to make you pay for the same thing over and over again. Even if it was, there are holes like CD and DVDs. The former has no DRM, and the latter has DRM that you can't break remotely. If we were in the hypothetical future you're talking about, then he'd have a point. Until then, DRM is not a means to an end, and accusing the **AA of wanting as much money as possible is as stupid, obvious, and useless as accusing men of wanting sex. It doesn't mean they'll get it, doesn't mean they think they'll get it, and it doesn't mean they'll aim for getting it.
Seriously though, I, and many, many others here, agree with you. I think, though, DRM has its place in music/movie rentals where it makes the service an unglorified rental, and you genuinely don't own what you pay for. Other than that, yeah, it simply doesn't have a place.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if everyone avoided contracts that they couldn't understand (or couldn't be bothered to understand) then that particular unethical predatory practice would bite the dust pretty quickly.
Tick yes, and when they question you about it, just say you were going to say "hell" instead of "heck" one time or another on your trip.
Your signature says otherwise. It doesn't matter whether or not you signed because you really, really wanted a mobile phone contract, or whether you genuinely feel that those terms were justified. The appropriate way to express your dissatisfaction with the agreement was to find a different provider with acceptable terms, or if the market couldn't provide that, then not agree to any at all, "convenience" be damned.
Or, you could just agree, and pay attention to your billing plan.
... RTFA was a little outdated.
So, who here actually WTFV?
*sigh*
It doesn't want to make you a criminal. No-one wants to make you a criminal. They want to make piracy a criminal activity, and they hope you won't become a criminal.
Piracy robs artists of their legally granted rights. Why shouldn't it be a (white collar) crime? The worst that'll happen is the burden of finding and prosecuting offenders, which the record/movie industry has devastatingly mishandled, will fall to the government, who at least you can elect.
No Clippy, that's a bad Clippy!
If the **AA was caught distributing small amounts of kiddie porn, it would be scandalous, but not fatal to the company. I'm pretty sure the courts (if not many of the public in general) would be lenient on them since a) it was not their intention, b) they never viewed/stored any of it, and c) they didn't share much of it at all.
Nuh-uh. Artists (and their unborn children) don't need money. Haven't you heard? They can just sustain themselves on the music, man. They like music so much that they'll be willing to starve, or get a part-time day job (unlike me), and dedicate all their free time to creating REALLY GOOD pieces of music! Even if it means total poverty!
In fact, the RIAA's money is turning lots of good artists away. Lot's of people who really truly do prefer forced poverty, rather than the option of all those distracting riches. Yes, taking the control out of artist's hands is the whole point of this! They want it. I, uhh, we want it! It's definitely NOT just me wanting free stuff. How dare you even suggest it?
File sharing isn't illegal in the same way it isn't illegal for a company to release product that explodes randomly in a big fiery explosion, obliterating everything in a 100 metre radius. Technically no, but for all intents and purposes, yes.
Besides, we could always make it illegal, which would be the best way to stop these ridiculous lawsuits while giving the RIAA and their artists the payment they deserve. Well, second best way, considering this whole thing would be over if everyone just stopped sharing copyrighted works.
Hate to break it to you, but your comment isn't exactly science itself. There's experiment, no research, no study, no reproducible results. It essentially boils down to you saying, ironically enough, "my culture is better than yours!"
Right, because it's so like the public to reject new audio-video tech. I guess that explains why HD-TVs were dead on arrival, huh?
Let's face it. The public aren't ones to make rational, utilitarian decisions when it comes to entertainment. It's entertainment after all.
How do you know? Have you worked in or with local governments "just about everywhere"? Or are you just presenting some random libellous navel-gazing as fact?
OK I'll bite. What does a controversial private security firm contracted by the government have to tell us about the government's intentions?
Honestly, I can't tell if you're ripping off the government, people who hate the government, the RIAA, people who hate the RIAA, conspiracy theorists, or all five.
Oh what, because you think they terrorise people for political gain? The real terrorist were the people hijacking the planes in 9/11. They were the ones who shocked and frightened the nation in the first place. The government, while benefiting politically from this, was also responding to the fear already out there in the public. They would be lousy politicians and lousy leaders if they didn't do something about that fear.
Without knowing exactly what went on inside the heads of the politicians, all I can say is this: everything they have done has been in the name of alleviating that fear. It's more been the press's position to use and intensify fear to sell their media, and consequently politicians have had their work cut out for them.
In other words, I think you have reversed causation, and you are targeting politicians simply because they are the easiest target.
... you say right before rebutting my supporting argument. Besides, I was asking a question. I was sceptical that the OP had considered the possibility that all those criteria for a better music industry were deliverable. If you want evidence of that assertion, go read my original post. I think you'll find a question mark in there somewhere.
First answer me this: why do you insist on putting words into my mouth? Not to mention asserting that I'm asserting something with no supporting arguments whatsoever to back your assertion up? And then accusing me of not providing supporting arguments? And then picking apart my supporting arguments in the next paragraph? While you think of an answer to my question, I'll answer yours.
I don't assert that wider catalogue, selection of formats, and sound quality will necessarily cost more money. I'm saying that there is plenty of demand for this kind of thing, and in lieu of actually having inside looks into accounting at major labels, I suggest there is a real possibility that the reason why don't already have this kind of thing is because they've estimated that people aren't prepared to pay for whatever costs implementing these things will incur. I don't know what these costs are, but it's a far, far, better explanation than dismissing this all as evil shenanigans for evil's sake from a corporate conglomerate.
However, since I sense that giving this reasonable explanation will not be enough, and you would probably want some pointless, largely uninformed speculation about what some of these costs may be, I'll oblige.
A wider catalogue is probably the biggest drain out of the ones you mentioned. It requires greater risks, greater resources, more paychecks (to new staff, not just new artists), and there's only a certain amount of money spent on music to go around (but since you know the phrase "basic economics", I'm sure you picked that up). In other words, the market is saturated. More artists provides more choice, but for every 1 to 1000 artists you choose, many more will miss out. The only way it could work is to raise prices to subsidise the less popular artists, but of course, there would have to be more management to distribute such pay. All in all, it would raise music prices, more than people would be (on average) prepared to pay. So you see, in this case, even though the people want greater choice, they don't want to pay for it, and thus they won't get it in the foreseeable future.
As for formats and quality, I believe DRM has a significant effect on casual piracy. Not the kind where you and your friends burn copies of new CDs for each other every time someone gets a new one, but the kind where a person copies a CD for himself once in a blue moon, when he hears it and likes it over at a friend's house. I believe I heard somewhere that casual piracy makes a significant proportion of actual lost sales to the RIAA, but DON'T quote me on that one. If we let people choose formats, specifically unencumbered free formats, we may see an increase in piracy, which would raise costs slightly.
As for quality choice, there's bandwidth issues, and that's about it.
So there you go. I hope by now you understand my cynicism about this whole music industry reform thing. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.
Oh. Good to know, thanks. :)
Still, you should be able to come up with similar concepts, even if the GPL is copyright.
We were actually talking about code that was previously free, but somehow is now not. You can't copyright free code again to stop it circulating, and you can hardly call it a trade secret when it has been circulating the net for some time (not to mention the copyright belongs to someone else).
Maybe that might tell you that I'm not actually posting a flamebait? No? I guess my name means that all my posts are automatic attempts at flamebait, huh. As for you, your obvious attempt at being cowardly has failed miserably.
Even though it wasn't really an assertion, I actually did support it. It's what everyone wants, and, most likely, we aren't getting it because it costs more. Why? Because that's why we don't get most things. Companies are happy to provide anything you want, so long as it doesn't produce a net loss. Net losses can be offset by higher prices. The question is, whether or not people actually want it enough to pay that much more for it.
That's the reason why the RIAA doesn't provide all those things. It's not because they're evil, or that they enjoy getting off on being withholding, it's because while (some) consumers complain loudly about this stuff, to actually change and provide all those things, there are costs that have to be offset. Expensive costs that have to be footed by the consumer.
You can do whatever you want. There's no copyright on the GPL, and you may modify it however you want. However, I would be careful about losing the concept of "free" software to some anti-corporatist ideology.
How exactly can you lock up code? The code will still be distributable no matter how many proprietary projects use it. The real question is, "should we allow companies (or anyone) to profit from code without giving something back?"
WTF? He said that's what they want, but mentioned nothing about what they have. He also said in the title "DRM was just a means to an end" and inferred that the end he was talking about was "to pay every time you watch or listen to [the RIAA/MPAA's] media". Then you come up with some unlikely and quite convoluted explanation of what that AC really meant, by inserting details where he obviously felt he didn't have to spell them out, and then accusing me of failing reading comprehension. I repeat: WTF?
I maintain that my point (well, snide remark) is still valid. DRM was not a means to make you pay for the same thing over and over again. Even if it was, there are holes like CD and DVDs. The former has no DRM, and the latter has DRM that you can't break remotely. If we were in the hypothetical future you're talking about, then he'd have a point. Until then, DRM is not a means to an end, and accusing the **AA of wanting as much money as possible is as stupid, obvious, and useless as accusing men of wanting sex. It doesn't mean they'll get it, doesn't mean they think they'll get it, and it doesn't mean they'll aim for getting it.
Uh oh. That's not going to go down well with the death penalty crowd...
Oh yeah? Prove it!
I'll be sure to tell that to my landlord. ;)
Seriously though, I, and many, many others here, agree with you. I think, though, DRM has its place in music/movie rentals where it makes the service an unglorified rental, and you genuinely don't own what you pay for. Other than that, yeah, it simply doesn't have a place.