The BBC don't do advertising, but it's likely that Google will, since ads are their entire business model. They may keep certain content ad-free to entice users in and only advertise where the content owners agree, or they may just put ads on everything regardless (or they may go a totally different way, who knows?) I think this is what the GP is referring to. He's still a troll but I don't think he's suggesting the BBC use advertising per se.
I'm not sure that's really how this will pan out, but you might be on the money there. I believe the BBC have already expressed a great deal of interest in uploading their content and making it freely available online, but the issue is that the BBC is funded by UK taxes and they're worried about non-UK users getting all this goodness for free. If Google were to pay the BBC for allowing the content to be shown, they could avoid that problem and still have the content available free of charge to the world.
Wait, are you saying perception of reality is necessary to be successful in life, or that the less perception of reality you have the more successful you will be? I guess if your definition of a successful life is to be a good, law abaiding citizen and avoid speeding tickets while trying not to be tardy, then sticking to the speed limit will help you reach your goals. On the other hand, a highly confident, perhaps even arrogant guy might feel that success with work and women is the ultimate goal - he probably thinks he's a much better driver than he actually is, or than anyone else, and as such speed limits don't really apply to him. He'll get more tickets but he'll probably also get more women. Whose perception of the "one true reality" is the more valid?
Maybe they are, but it sticks in the craw less since they don't do their whining whilst climbing out of Ferraris in front of their multi-million dollar mansions.
It's meant to play on the still pretty much widely held-to stereotype of the typical geek. The fact that most of us are in successful, long term relationships just adds to the irony of the stereotype. Therein (still) lies the funny.
The obvious use that springs to mind is laptops, where size is not nearly so important as weight and power usage. If flash drives could give me a lighter laptop to lug around that didn't die so quickly, I wouldn't mind that it cost a little more or had a little less storage. The balance is still the issue though, if the storage was tiny or the price exorbitant I'd happily stick with the heavier alternative.
You seem really annoyed and yet, even so, you haven't ruled out the Wii completely even after three months of frustration and the chances are if you could get your hands on one right now, you probably would. To some extent it pays dividends to a company to have production running ever so slightly less than demand for a new product. Nintendo is riding high on a buying frenzy at the moment, sites are full of news about how hard it is to get your hands on the Wii and that might actually convert a few people who would otherwise be willing to wait, since they'll be more likely to sieze the chance to own one while they can.
The unmet demand creates a feeling of exclusivity around the product, which makes it more desirable and feeds back into the cycle. Of course, the trick is keeping this all at just the right level, you want production to be just slightly less than demand to feed it, but not so far below that people have no realistic expectation of getting their hands on the product or that you're losing out on mountains of sales cash. I'm not sure if this is being engineered by Nintendo, most likely it just happened and they're taking advantage of it while they can, but either way I'll bet they're loving every second of it...
I'm not sure it's apathy so much as a lack of understanding of the consequences of these cards. Every (non-geek) person I've spoken to about them seems to take the stance, "I have nothing to hide so why should I worry?". When I explain why they should worry then they almost always have a sudden volte-face on the subject. I honestly believe if people were better educated on what these cards really mean instead of having terrorist FUD forced down their throats the reaction would be much greater.
Considering the way our governments seem unwilling to properly address what we're doing to our only planet, actions which could have significant impact in a relatively short time, it looks unlikely that they'd invest billions or even trillions in firing off a few colonists that we'll never see again in our lifetimes. If we ever stop bickering and blowing each other up then we might reach levels of population growth which would necessitate looking for options closer to home in our solar system, but the chances of that happening seem slim.
Regardless that RIAA are not the recording labels, they are agents appointed by the labels to do whatever it is they're meant to be doing on the labels' behalf. You can't just appoint an agent and then free yourself of any blame which attaches to them. If the one is acting without the knowledge of the other then there is a communication breakdown which exists, that doesn't make the one who appoints them any less blameworthy. Having said that I don't think this was a conspiracy, just the usual RIAA idiocy.
This makes me wonder if their main concern is not that the videos are posted, but that so many people will happily accept such lossy, poor quality videos in the first place. It flies in the face of the big push for HDTV (which in turn brings with it the associated DRM fun and games). If people are willing to watch such low quality videos then why buy shell out a ton of money on a bunch of DRM encumbered technology and buy all your content again...
I'd say "the" culture. In fact, from what I've seen people in the "geek culture" tend to be more aware of copyright and the issues surrounding it (though that doesn't necessarily make them less liable to breach copyright). To the average guy or girl on the street, having a friend give you a copy of their CD or borrowing a copied movie just isn't an issue at all. Maybe on some level they know it's wrong, but I've seen little evidence that people care.
No, it doesn't make it right, but it does make a difference. By using the terminology of a more serious, criminal offence 'they' are trying to engineer a more negative opinion of copying in the mind of the public who, generally, don't really care about copyright. Not only that, they are trying to make a civil offence sound like it's actually a criminal offence, to engineer a false concern as to the possible consequences of violation.
If copyright is, in and of itself, an offence worthy of public abhoration, then why fudge the definition to make it sound more serious? Just state the facts as they exist and let the public decide how they feel about it.
I doubt the people in charge of their websites are the same asses in charge of the group's corporate strategies. Suing in this case would not help anything.
The people who download the music aren't always the same people they sue...
Not only that, these schemes force people to look for more ingenius ways to circumvent them. That's eventually going to lead more and more people down the path of encrypted p2p, and if the government think they're already having a hard time tracking terrorist plots online, wait until a massive part of the online world is regularly producing heavily encrypted traffic. So, yes, I think I just made a reasonable argument for DRM assisting terrorism
What they're saying is, "Look, we hate DRM as much as you guys, and as much as Yahoo do, and Steve Jobs. In fact, we were hating it before it was even cool to hate it. But what can we do? Our hands are tied. By ourselves. Buy our music."
Imagine you're a little baby bird learning to fly. You want to fly. You think life would be better if you could fly. So you step up to the edge of a cliff and look down. You understand that, if everything goes according to your theory, you should be fine. But then you think, "What if I'm not the sort of bird that could fly? What if I'm an ostrich or a penguin?" You realize that you have a choice: you can continue to walk around and your life will be fine, or you could take a chance, jump off the cliff, and hope you can fly.
I like that analogy, but it probably needs some tweaking. Imagine you're a global, money-sucking record label, and as long as you can remember, you've had the public handcuffed to your bed so you can screw them over whenever you want. The public is saying, look, take off the handcuffs and we'll happily jump into bed with you, we might even stop trying to sneakily get some action on the side from that p2p network. What do you do, do you trust the public and make them happy by unfettering them, or do you not take the risk and instead just keep them chained up?
By copying he's already not consuming. The labels have already stated they don't care so much about piracy as about controlling how their legitimate customers use their products, so it makes no difference to them whether he's copying the music he listens to or just not listening to it full stop. "Piracy" is just an excuse.
Mugging involves violence or the threat of violence against someone. On no level does copyright infringement cause someone to fear for their lives - sure it can hit their pocket, and it might even hit their pocket a hell of a lot more than the average mugging, but you just can't equate the two. If I had to choose between losing everything I own or losing my life it wouldn't even be a choice - maybe you should try being mugged and see if you still think it's on a par with someone uploading 24?
Slashdot Mirror
The BBC don't do advertising, but it's likely that Google will, since ads are their entire business model. They may keep certain content ad-free to entice users in and only advertise where the content owners agree, or they may just put ads on everything regardless (or they may go a totally different way, who knows?) I think this is what the GP is referring to. He's still a troll but I don't think he's suggesting the BBC use advertising per se.
I'm not sure that's really how this will pan out, but you might be on the money there. I believe the BBC have already expressed a great deal of interest in uploading their content and making it freely available online, but the issue is that the BBC is funded by UK taxes and they're worried about non-UK users getting all this goodness for free. If Google were to pay the BBC for allowing the content to be shown, they could avoid that problem and still have the content available free of charge to the world.
So it was a drug-fuelled attack, then?
Wait, are you saying perception of reality is necessary to be successful in life, or that the less perception of reality you have the more successful you will be? I guess if your definition of a successful life is to be a good, law abaiding citizen and avoid speeding tickets while trying not to be tardy, then sticking to the speed limit will help you reach your goals. On the other hand, a highly confident, perhaps even arrogant guy might feel that success with work and women is the ultimate goal - he probably thinks he's a much better driver than he actually is, or than anyone else, and as such speed limits don't really apply to him. He'll get more tickets but he'll probably also get more women. Whose perception of the "one true reality" is the more valid?
Maybe they are, but it sticks in the craw less since they don't do their whining whilst climbing out of Ferraris in front of their multi-million dollar mansions.
It's meant to play on the still pretty much widely held-to stereotype of the typical geek. The fact that most of us are in successful, long term relationships just adds to the irony of the stereotype. Therein (still) lies the funny.
The obvious use that springs to mind is laptops, where size is not nearly so important as weight and power usage. If flash drives could give me a lighter laptop to lug around that didn't die so quickly, I wouldn't mind that it cost a little more or had a little less storage. The balance is still the issue though, if the storage was tiny or the price exorbitant I'd happily stick with the heavier alternative.
You seem really annoyed and yet, even so, you haven't ruled out the Wii completely even after three months of frustration and the chances are if you could get your hands on one right now, you probably would. To some extent it pays dividends to a company to have production running ever so slightly less than demand for a new product. Nintendo is riding high on a buying frenzy at the moment, sites are full of news about how hard it is to get your hands on the Wii and that might actually convert a few people who would otherwise be willing to wait, since they'll be more likely to sieze the chance to own one while they can.
The unmet demand creates a feeling of exclusivity around the product, which makes it more desirable and feeds back into the cycle. Of course, the trick is keeping this all at just the right level, you want production to be just slightly less than demand to feed it, but not so far below that people have no realistic expectation of getting their hands on the product or that you're losing out on mountains of sales cash. I'm not sure if this is being engineered by Nintendo, most likely it just happened and they're taking advantage of it while they can, but either way I'll bet they're loving every second of it...
I'm not sure it's apathy so much as a lack of understanding of the consequences of these cards. Every (non-geek) person I've spoken to about them seems to take the stance, "I have nothing to hide so why should I worry?". When I explain why they should worry then they almost always have a sudden volte-face on the subject. I honestly believe if people were better educated on what these cards really mean instead of having terrorist FUD forced down their throats the reaction would be much greater.
Considering the way our governments seem unwilling to properly address what we're doing to our only planet, actions which could have significant impact in a relatively short time, it looks unlikely that they'd invest billions or even trillions in firing off a few colonists that we'll never see again in our lifetimes. If we ever stop bickering and blowing each other up then we might reach levels of population growth which would necessitate looking for options closer to home in our solar system, but the chances of that happening seem slim.
If he's an internet addict he's probably getting off on this thread right now. Eww, I feel unclean :/
It doesn't say they weren't police, just that they were men in RIAA jackets. Maybe it's some RIAA sponsorship deal?
Regardless that RIAA are not the recording labels, they are agents appointed by the labels to do whatever it is they're meant to be doing on the labels' behalf. You can't just appoint an agent and then free yourself of any blame which attaches to them. If the one is acting without the knowledge of the other then there is a communication breakdown which exists, that doesn't make the one who appoints them any less blameworthy. Having said that I don't think this was a conspiracy, just the usual RIAA idiocy.
This makes me wonder if their main concern is not that the videos are posted, but that so many people will happily accept such lossy, poor quality videos in the first place. It flies in the face of the big push for HDTV (which in turn brings with it the associated DRM fun and games). If people are willing to watch such low quality videos then why buy shell out a ton of money on a bunch of DRM encumbered technology and buy all your content again...
I'd say "the" culture. In fact, from what I've seen people in the "geek culture" tend to be more aware of copyright and the issues surrounding it (though that doesn't necessarily make them less liable to breach copyright). To the average guy or girl on the street, having a friend give you a copy of their CD or borrowing a copied movie just isn't an issue at all. Maybe on some level they know it's wrong, but I've seen little evidence that people care.
No, it doesn't make it right, but it does make a difference. By using the terminology of a more serious, criminal offence 'they' are trying to engineer a more negative opinion of copying in the mind of the public who, generally, don't really care about copyright. Not only that, they are trying to make a civil offence sound like it's actually a criminal offence, to engineer a false concern as to the possible consequences of violation.
If copyright is, in and of itself, an offence worthy of public abhoration, then why fudge the definition to make it sound more serious? Just state the facts as they exist and let the public decide how they feel about it.
I doubt the people in charge of their websites are the same asses in charge of the group's corporate strategies. Suing in this case would not help anything.
The people who download the music aren't always the same people they sue...
Or they could raise the price of the games to $500 each and they'd only need two good ones for your system to entice you into buying ... Profit!!
Not only that, these schemes force people to look for more ingenius ways to circumvent them. That's eventually going to lead more and more people down the path of encrypted p2p, and if the government think they're already having a hard time tracking terrorist plots online, wait until a massive part of the online world is regularly producing heavily encrypted traffic. So, yes, I think I just made a reasonable argument for DRM assisting terrorism
What they're saying is, "Look, we hate DRM as much as you guys, and as much as Yahoo do, and Steve Jobs. In fact, we were hating it before it was even cool to hate it. But what can we do? Our hands are tied. By ourselves. Buy our music."
Imagine you're a little baby bird learning to fly. You want to fly. You think life would be better if you could fly. So you step up to the edge of a cliff and look down. You understand that, if everything goes according to your theory, you should be fine. But then you think, "What if I'm not the sort of bird that could fly? What if I'm an ostrich or a penguin?" You realize that you have a choice: you can continue to walk around and your life will be fine, or you could take a chance, jump off the cliff, and hope you can fly.
I like that analogy, but it probably needs some tweaking. Imagine you're a global, money-sucking record label, and as long as you can remember, you've had the public handcuffed to your bed so you can screw them over whenever you want. The public is saying, look, take off the handcuffs and we'll happily jump into bed with you, we might even stop trying to sneakily get some action on the side from that p2p network. What do you do, do you trust the public and make them happy by unfettering them, or do you not take the risk and instead just keep them chained up?
And what if, instead of giving them the music, you let them have it at a price that is practically giving it away?
By copying he's already not consuming. The labels have already stated they don't care so much about piracy as about controlling how their legitimate customers use their products, so it makes no difference to them whether he's copying the music he listens to or just not listening to it full stop. "Piracy" is just an excuse.
Maybe the bribes are working just fine and this is all just a big show to cover them up ;)
Mugging involves violence or the threat of violence against someone. On no level does copyright infringement cause someone to fear for their lives - sure it can hit their pocket, and it might even hit their pocket a hell of a lot more than the average mugging, but you just can't equate the two. If I had to choose between losing everything I own or losing my life it wouldn't even be a choice - maybe you should try being mugged and see if you still think it's on a par with someone uploading 24?