Well, performances by each artist are as scarce as the artist lets them be. Let them take a lesson from Bach and make their living as a (live) performer, not as a composer.
The record labels HAVE a practical business model, which is funding and promoting artists and then collecting royalties on the records sold as payment. That lots of people selfishly choose to circumvent the payment bit of this model doesn't render it any less practical or feasible.
I hate to break it to you, but if you aren't providing the people with what they want, or even with that which they are willing to pay for, then your business model is no longer practical. The fact of the matter is, people are going to download, because it's cheap and convenient. Now, the record labels are forced into a shoddy situation. They have to 1) convince people that downloading is a bad thing, 2) make downloading either difficult or impossible, 3) lobby to make any method of obtaining music other than their proscribed methods illegal, and 4) prosecute those who break your laws.
Now, one is a hard thing to do, as people who download are people who aren't very likely to listen to The Man. Two is also a pain in the arse, as you encounter the hydra like nature of the Internet, as well as the Streisand effect. For every site you take offline, more will rise to take its place. Three, well they've accomplished it in the US. Now try getting every other country to pass similar laws. Oh, and when four comes along, I sincerely wish you the best of luck when it comes to prosecuting even enough people for breaking your paid and bought for laws.
If they cannot manage to get people to stop downloading, then their business model will go the way of the dodo, the dinosaur, and the PC Party of Canada.
Actually, it's all one ballot. The instructions are printed in English on one side, French on the other, and there's ONE selection list, with the name, the affiliation in both languages, AND in the case of the recent referendum, a separate ballot done in a similar manner. No need for multiple ballots or anything of the sort; just one simple ballot in both languages. And since the majority of Canadians are used to dealing with official government writing done in both languages, we can successfully ignore the language we don't speak. No need for alternate ballots, as everyone in Canada is supposed to at least read either English or French, and if you can't, well tough shit for you.
Fair enough. But if you're going to standardize, don't let the guy in charge of selling choose the standards. Would you trust Hagen-Das to set the standards for ice-cream? Would you trust the government to set the standards for government transparency? Hell, would you trust the guy in the meat shop down the street to set the standard for meat?
Of course you wouldn't. Because it's just plain stupid. So why on god's green earth should MS be allowed to create the standard for the computing world? They shouldn't. Someone else (say, ISO, only without the bribery) should be in charge of the standards. And then let people choose on which company best delivers on those standards.
As for you comment about too many choices, give Joe SixPack default options and recommendations. Or hell, let him go into the store and ask what he should get for his computer. If he's not smart enough to know what his computer should do, then why is he customizing a computer? That's like letting me try and customize a car. I don't know enough about it, and I will either do my research, or ask for the opinion of the salesman. The point is, Joe SixPack should be given the opportunity to pick what he wants, but also offered a default option should he not fully understand his choices. It's like default/advanced install options. The default is good for the average user. For those who know what they're doing, let them screw with the advanced options.
What if I set up a huge group of fake accounts, and have it trust everything that everyone else trusts. i.e. make it part of the undying masses. Then, when I create my machine crippling virus, get all of those accounts to trust that program. Say I'm really sneaky, and I put in a 3 month timer from the install date on the program, and have it do something really useful. Then, after 3 months of using it, bam, it ruins your computer. Then I've tricked people into not only installing, but trusting my sneaky attack.
Not to mention other ways of manipulating the trustiness metric. However, my "What if" aside, it could be a good idea, so long as you find a way to weight it properly. Say, give security groups a high priority.
So as of the last 3 years, it has been fully legal to make your music available as well as download music. Seems that Canada does support a certain amount of privacy.
You seem like an intelligent individual, my good sir. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. I shall take your busfare experiment in mind, as it seems like a good way of deciding if a particular store is worthy of shopping there.
I'm calling bullshit on your "whole christian religion" statement. There are many different sects and sorts of Christians. There's Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Lutherans, Mennonites, etc... All these are "Christian" in the most general sense of the word, in that they follow the teachings of Christ. But there are huge differences in between each sect of Christianity. As a Roman Catholic, I find Anglican teachings strange. And most people look at Mormons and wonder where they came from. And besides. It's only a vocal minority of evangelical Christians in the Southern US that have been protesting the teachings of evolution. So do me a favour and try not to paint two billion individuals with one brush.
One, I live in the Great White North, and therefore don't have to deal with this crap. Two, I recently turned 18, and can now buy AO games no problem. And three, I have the common sense to think about the content of the games I buy, and not rely on someone else to think for me. Though I think that last one might count as a big miracle.
Heh. Your story reminds me of when Snakes on a Plane came out. Me and a group of like 20 people (we took up a row and a half at the local AMC 24) all went to go see it at like 10:00 in the evening the night it came out. There were maybe 10 more people in the theatre, and apparently we were all in the same mindset as we were: "This is going to be the worst movie we've ever seen, but it's going to be fucking awesome." We ended up yelling our heads off at certain parts in the movie, notably the first time we saw Jackson's character, and at the infamous line. I don't think I've ever had so much fun in a theatre, and it's not likely I will again.
I'm going to attempt an analogy. This may be horribly flawed, but there is some logic here.
The current downloading of copyrighted files is akin to drinking during prohibition. The laws were on the books making drinking (sharing copyrighted files) illegal. However, that didn't stop people from drinking, and in fact simply forced the alcohol industry underground, where it was taken over by organized crime. The temperance movement (RIAA / MPAA) did their best to keep the laws on the books forcing what they thought was a horrible thing to become illegal. However in doing this, they made criminals out of everyday folk who blatantly disregarded the less than sensible laws. Had anyone tried to enforce the, dare I say it, stupid laws in place, they would have ended up with millions behind bars.
My point is that attempting to create or uphold laws that no one respects is futile. They can't and won't be able to prosecute every uploader of files, and eventually, the laws on the books will match the reality of what goes on in day to day life.
I'm sorry, but can you prove, or even back up any of that? Aside from your blatant disregard of the human cost of a shooting (a person is a person, even if their job is naught but a $15K per annum store clerk), your numbers are pure conjecture. How exactly does society lose $150K with each copy of a piece of music? Are you telling me that every time I host Dandelions by Five Iron Frenzy and someone downloads it, the world's money goes down another $150K? Because that's what losing money means. I think that you actually mean that there's $150,000 that hasn't been injected back into the economy as a direct result of my actions. Yet where is the proof of this? You can't measure money not earned. Please, come back with some evidence, or at least the logic you used to come to these conclusions.
Clarifying question: Does this mean that for a law to pass in the Senate, it takes ceil(2/3*SenatePopulation)+1 = 68 votes for SenatePopulation = 100, and that the House can repeal a law if they have floor(1/3*HousePopulation) = 146 votes for HousePopulation = 435?
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, but there's a difference between making a profit and pissing and moaning when your profit isn't as high as you expected.
Well, performances by each artist are as scarce as the artist lets them be. Let them take a lesson from Bach and make their living as a (live) performer, not as a composer.
I hate to break it to you, but if you aren't providing the people with what they want, or even with that which they are willing to pay for, then your business model is no longer practical. The fact of the matter is, people are going to download, because it's cheap and convenient. Now, the record labels are forced into a shoddy situation. They have to 1) convince people that downloading is a bad thing, 2) make downloading either difficult or impossible, 3) lobby to make any method of obtaining music other than their proscribed methods illegal, and 4) prosecute those who break your laws.
Now, one is a hard thing to do, as people who download are people who aren't very likely to listen to The Man. Two is also a pain in the arse, as you encounter the hydra like nature of the Internet, as well as the Streisand effect. For every site you take offline, more will rise to take its place. Three, well they've accomplished it in the US. Now try getting every other country to pass similar laws. Oh, and when four comes along, I sincerely wish you the best of luck when it comes to prosecuting even enough people for breaking your paid and bought for laws.
If they cannot manage to get people to stop downloading, then their business model will go the way of the dodo, the dinosaur, and the PC Party of Canada.
Actually, it's all one ballot. The instructions are printed in English on one side, French on the other, and there's ONE selection list, with the name, the affiliation in both languages, AND in the case of the recent referendum, a separate ballot done in a similar manner. No need for multiple ballots or anything of the sort; just one simple ballot in both languages. And since the majority of Canadians are used to dealing with official government writing done in both languages, we can successfully ignore the language we don't speak. No need for alternate ballots, as everyone in Canada is supposed to at least read either English or French, and if you can't, well tough shit for you.
Yeah, but who do you trust to properly design the system?
(Really off-topic)
For god's sake means for the sake of god, i.e. doing something to benefit god.
Damn son. You win.
Of course you wouldn't. Because it's just plain stupid. So why on god's green earth should MS be allowed to create the standard for the computing world? They shouldn't. Someone else (say, ISO, only without the bribery) should be in charge of the standards. And then let people choose on which company best delivers on those standards.
As for you comment about too many choices, give Joe SixPack default options and recommendations. Or hell, let him go into the store and ask what he should get for his computer. If he's not smart enough to know what his computer should do, then why is he customizing a computer? That's like letting me try and customize a car. I don't know enough about it, and I will either do my research, or ask for the opinion of the salesman. The point is, Joe SixPack should be given the opportunity to pick what he wants, but also offered a default option should he not fully understand his choices. It's like default/advanced install options. The default is good for the average user. For those who know what they're doing, let them screw with the advanced options.
But hey. That's just me and my two cents.
What if I set up a huge group of fake accounts, and have it trust everything that everyone else trusts. i.e. make it part of the undying masses. Then, when I create my machine crippling virus, get all of those accounts to trust that program. Say I'm really sneaky, and I put in a 3 month timer from the install date on the program, and have it do something really useful. Then, after 3 months of using it, bam, it ruins your computer. Then I've tricked people into not only installing, but trusting my sneaky attack.
Not to mention other ways of manipulating the trustiness metric. However, my "What if" aside, it could be a good idea, so long as you find a way to weight it properly. Say, give security groups a high priority.
Actually, in Canada, making available isn't illegal. You can see the full text of the most recent case here: http://reports.fja.gc.ca/en/2004/2004fc488/2004fc488.html?tag=nl
So as of the last 3 years, it has been fully legal to make your music available as well as download music. Seems that Canada does support a certain amount of privacy.
You seem like an intelligent individual, my good sir. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. I shall take your busfare experiment in mind, as it seems like a good way of deciding if a particular store is worthy of shopping there.
His poor corpse, to be precise. MS lawyers'll make mincemeat out of his sorry ass.
I'm calling bullshit on your "whole christian religion" statement. There are many different sects and sorts of Christians. There's Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Lutherans, Mennonites, etc... All these are "Christian" in the most general sense of the word, in that they follow the teachings of Christ. But there are huge differences in between each sect of Christianity. As a Roman Catholic, I find Anglican teachings strange. And most people look at Mormons and wonder where they came from. And besides. It's only a vocal minority of evangelical Christians in the Southern US that have been protesting the teachings of evolution. So do me a favour and try not to paint two billion individuals with one brush.
One, I live in the Great White North, and therefore don't have to deal with this crap.
Two, I recently turned 18, and can now buy AO games no problem.
And three, I have the common sense to think about the content of the games I buy, and not rely on someone else to think for me. Though I think that last one might count as a big miracle.
Heh. Your story reminds me of when Snakes on a Plane came out. Me and a group of like 20 people (we took up a row and a half at the local AMC 24) all went to go see it at like 10:00 in the evening the night it came out. There were maybe 10 more people in the theatre, and apparently we were all in the same mindset as we were: "This is going to be the worst movie we've ever seen, but it's going to be fucking awesome." We ended up yelling our heads off at certain parts in the movie, notably the first time we saw Jackson's character, and at the infamous line. I don't think I've ever had so much fun in a theatre, and it's not likely I will again.
I'm going to attempt an analogy. This may be horribly flawed, but there is some logic here.
The current downloading of copyrighted files is akin to drinking during prohibition. The laws were on the books making drinking (sharing copyrighted files) illegal. However, that didn't stop people from drinking, and in fact simply forced the alcohol industry underground, where it was taken over by organized crime. The temperance movement (RIAA / MPAA) did their best to keep the laws on the books forcing what they thought was a horrible thing to become illegal. However in doing this, they made criminals out of everyday folk who blatantly disregarded the less than sensible laws. Had anyone tried to enforce the, dare I say it, stupid laws in place, they would have ended up with millions behind bars.
My point is that attempting to create or uphold laws that no one respects is futile. They can't and won't be able to prosecute every uploader of files, and eventually, the laws on the books will match the reality of what goes on in day to day life.
Actually, it was Rufol Clausius
So my euphonium is safe? Awesome. Bonus points to anyone who knows what that is without googling it.
You mean like him
I'm sorry, but can you prove, or even back up any of that? Aside from your blatant disregard of the human cost of a shooting (a person is a person, even if their job is naught but a $15K per annum store clerk), your numbers are pure conjecture. How exactly does society lose $150K with each copy of a piece of music? Are you telling me that every time I host Dandelions by Five Iron Frenzy and someone downloads it, the world's money goes down another $150K? Because that's what losing money means. I think that you actually mean that there's $150,000 that hasn't been injected back into the economy as a direct result of my actions. Yet where is the proof of this? You can't measure money not earned. Please, come back with some evidence, or at least the logic you used to come to these conclusions.
Clarifying question: Does this mean that for a law to pass in the Senate, it takes ceil(2/3*SenatePopulation)+1 = 68 votes for SenatePopulation = 100, and that the House can repeal a law if they have floor(1/3*HousePopulation) = 146 votes for HousePopulation = 435?
Yeah. But they don't see a difference. To them, your motives are irrelevant, it's the actions that count. And that's how the law will see it as well.
And if you're really hardcore, disconnect the LEDs from the circuit. Or if you just want it to stop, break the LED.