There's no need to abolish public schools all together, just give parents a choice of where their child's portion of the education funds are spent. If they want to send their children to a private school, then they get a vocher which that public school can turn in for the funds that would have been put into a private school for that child.
Add some choice to the system and you'll see schools shape up or ship out. When parents can move their child away from a school AND take the associated funding with them, then they have a voice that will get attention.
If you look back through history, there are many examples of people predicting that a technological revolution would put an end to an industry. We see it in everything from spinning/weaving to live performances. In the eighteenth century fabrics were made by a series of artisans who did everything from spin the wool to weaving the fabric. They were actually successful for a while at stopping the use of machinery for textile production, but now take it for granted that the industrial revolution in fact boosted the economy and provided jobs. When recorded music was first being made, musicians were worried that if you could record music then nobody would want to pay to hear a live performance. This has obviously proven to be false as this is now the primary method that most musicians receive an income from their music.
You're still comparing apples and oranges. Your example of taking a song, modifying it, and selling it as your own without paying royalties is different than providing a service where a single copy is purchased, modified, then delivered to the consumer. There is no copying going on, therefore no need for royalties beyond the retail purchase price.
This is not a royalty issue, nor is it a matter of deception. If you purchase a movie through CleanFlix then you know it's been modified...that's what you're paying extra for. I don't see where the confusion is coming from on this. There might be gray areas if the consumer was unaware of the changes or if copies were being made without the proper royalties, but this is basically a case of a company doing what parents have done for years...hitting pause and fast forwarding past the parts they don't want kids to see.
Unfortunately, the recording (movie/music) industry would disagree with you that you own your copy. In fact, I believe they've even made it part of copyright law that you don't technically own anything other than the right for you to read/listen/watch it. For instance, when you loan a book to a friend to read you are technically breaking the law because when you bought that book you alone purchased the right to read it. That's why libraries pay much higher prices for their books...and the right for many people to read it.
They key here is allowing consumers to make the decision for themselves. If I understand this correctly, the government is saying that it's illegal to run a business where you cut scenes out of movies to make the edited versions availble to consumers. In other words, a consumer could choose to go to Blockbuster and buy the unedited version, or Cleanflix and not see the violence.
It seems rediculous to me to trade the customer's ability to choose in order to "preserve the artists original portrayal". To me that's like saying you can't change out your video card in your Dell computer because the concept behind that computer would be modified and it's not what Dell intended. There's no law that says I can't cut up my Levis if I want to even if Levis doesn't like seeing their jeans cut up. The movie/music industry seems to be able to make up these rediculous rules/values then does a scarily good job of getting them turned into legislation. If our government had any backbone it would stop being corporate lapdogs and use some common sense.
Did you just actually say that moviemakers wouldn't include unnecessary nudity and violence that isn't integral to conveying the plot? Have you actually WATCHED any movies in the last ten years? Moviemakers absolutely include nudity and violence that has nothing to do with the movie other than increasing the age rating and drawing audiences who want to see that stuff. It seems like every moron wants to make laws these days. Since when did we need laws to tell people that they can't NOT WATCH something.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed...but we've got the pics! :)
GoogleMobilePhone.net
No kidding. We've got one screwed up "justice" system (using the term loosely of course).
There's no need to abolish public schools all together, just give parents a choice of where their child's portion of the education funds are spent. If they want to send their children to a private school, then they get a vocher which that public school can turn in for the funds that would have been put into a private school for that child.
Add some choice to the system and you'll see schools shape up or ship out. When parents can move their child away from a school AND take the associated funding with them, then they have a voice that will get attention.
If you look back through history, there are many examples of people predicting that a technological revolution would put an end to an industry. We see it in everything from spinning/weaving to live performances. In the eighteenth century fabrics were made by a series of artisans who did everything from spin the wool to weaving the fabric. They were actually successful for a while at stopping the use of machinery for textile production, but now take it for granted that the industrial revolution in fact boosted the economy and provided jobs. When recorded music was first being made, musicians were worried that if you could record music then nobody would want to pay to hear a live performance. This has obviously proven to be false as this is now the primary method that most musicians receive an income from their music.
Does anyone have video footage of Microsoft bending over for the media companies? I was hoping it was caught on film.
"Thank you sir may I have another?"
- Bill Gates
You're still comparing apples and oranges. Your example of taking a song, modifying it, and selling it as your own without paying royalties is different than providing a service where a single copy is purchased, modified, then delivered to the consumer. There is no copying going on, therefore no need for royalties beyond the retail purchase price. This is not a royalty issue, nor is it a matter of deception. If you purchase a movie through CleanFlix then you know it's been modified...that's what you're paying extra for. I don't see where the confusion is coming from on this. There might be gray areas if the consumer was unaware of the changes or if copies were being made without the proper royalties, but this is basically a case of a company doing what parents have done for years...hitting pause and fast forwarding past the parts they don't want kids to see.
Unfortunately, the recording (movie/music) industry would disagree with you that you own your copy. In fact, I believe they've even made it part of copyright law that you don't technically own anything other than the right for you to read/listen/watch it. For instance, when you loan a book to a friend to read you are technically breaking the law because when you bought that book you alone purchased the right to read it. That's why libraries pay much higher prices for their books...and the right for many people to read it.
They key here is allowing consumers to make the decision for themselves. If I understand this correctly, the government is saying that it's illegal to run a business where you cut scenes out of movies to make the edited versions availble to consumers. In other words, a consumer could choose to go to Blockbuster and buy the unedited version, or Cleanflix and not see the violence. It seems rediculous to me to trade the customer's ability to choose in order to "preserve the artists original portrayal". To me that's like saying you can't change out your video card in your Dell computer because the concept behind that computer would be modified and it's not what Dell intended. There's no law that says I can't cut up my Levis if I want to even if Levis doesn't like seeing their jeans cut up. The movie/music industry seems to be able to make up these rediculous rules/values then does a scarily good job of getting them turned into legislation. If our government had any backbone it would stop being corporate lapdogs and use some common sense.
Did you just actually say that moviemakers wouldn't include unnecessary nudity and violence that isn't integral to conveying the plot? Have you actually WATCHED any movies in the last ten years? Moviemakers absolutely include nudity and violence that has nothing to do with the movie other than increasing the age rating and drawing audiences who want to see that stuff. It seems like every moron wants to make laws these days. Since when did we need laws to tell people that they can't NOT WATCH something.