digg.com is getting OWND by posts regarding the HD-DVD key lol

[Kirby64]

Mmmm, I forsee the banstick being thrown around within this topic.

/lawnchair
/popcorn

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Why is it different? Why should one person be required to exchange a day of labor for a fair days pay, while another person can exchange 1 day of labor for 99 years of pay and have it guaranteed by the government? Before recordable media, musicians earned their money by working hard and traveling the country giving concerts and actually performing., and they still do it today. CDs are just icing on the cake. Sports players, regardless if you think what they make is ridiculous or not, at least they out out in the field performing for that money. They don't play one game, make a recording of it, and sit on their butt for 99 years making money off of it while suing anybody who downloads a copy or happens to watch their friends copy for free.

Don't get me wrong, I do support people being paid for their work, but when does 'fair compensation for hard work' become 'wanting a free ride for all eternity' and suing anybody who doesn't fork over their $20 every time they happen to hear a song playing on any radio they walk by without owning the CD?

First of all, it doesn't take one day to make an album or movie. It can take months and years. Even then you're not guaranteed any money whatsoever.

Would you pick up garbage for a year on the HOPE that you might get paid?

This is the chance you take as an artist.

Secondly, if you buy a CD... you can listen to it over and over and over, every day for the rest of your life. One day of garbage pickup = one day. You still have to pay for the next day.

Also, you glossed over the pension analogy. Garbage men get pensions-- money they can live on long after they're able to pick up garbage. Musicians do not. Are you against pensions too? They get to sit on their butt for the rest of their life as well.

Obviously, I wish DRM was seamless and completely transparent. But I also wish people wouldn't pirate content with reckless abandon. In the same way, I wish I didn't have to locks on my car. It's annoying to turn the key everyday. But it seems people want to steal my car. Can a good car thief get by the lock/ alarm easily? Of course. But it does slow down people.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: exdeath

Why is it different? Why should one person be required to exchange a day of labor for a fair days pay, while another person can exchange 1 day of labor for 99 years of pay and have it guaranteed by the government? Before recordable media, musicians earned their money by working hard and traveling the country giving concerts and actually performing., and they still do it today. CDs are just icing on the cake. Sports players, regardless if you think what they make is ridiculous or not, at least they out out in the field performing for that money. They don't play one game, make a recording of it, and sit on their butt for 99 years making money off of it while suing anybody who downloads a copy or happens to watch their friends copy for free.

Don't get me wrong, I do support people being paid for their work, but when does 'fair compensation for hard work' become 'wanting a free ride for all eternity' and suing anybody who doesn't fork over their $20 every time they happen to hear a song playing on any radio they walk by without owning the CD?

First of all, it doesn't take one day to make an album or movie. It can take months and years. Even then you're not guaranteed any money whatsoever.

Would you pick up garbage for a year on the HOPE that you might get paid?

This is the chance you take as an artist.

Secondly, if you buy a CD... you can listen to it over and over and over, every day for the rest of your life. One day of garbage pickup = one day. You still have to pay for the next day.

Also, you glossed over the pension analogy. Garbage men get pensions-- money they can live on long after they're able to pick up garbage. Musicians do not. Are you against pensions too? They get to sit on their butt for the rest of their life as well.

Obviously, I wish DRM was seamless and completely transparent. But I also wish people wouldn't pirate content with reckless abandon. In the same way, I wish I didn't have to locks on my car. It's annoying to turn the key everyday. But it seems people want to steal my car. Can a good car thief get by the lock/ alarm easily? Of course. But it does slow down people.

I'm not a garbage man so I can't comment on their compensation, but that was only an example that someone else posted. I could just as easily pick another occupation such as a fry cook; fry cooks should be able to work hard for a year, and get paid for life after they quit, right? They don't get pension. I am a programmer and aspiring game developer, so I do understand the other end of it from a limited perspective.

And as I said, I do agree that artists, be the work a book, game, movie, or music recording, deserve compensation for their work. And I don't fault dumb ass athletes and actors for having millions regardless of how ridiculous I may thing it is, because nobody is forcing me to contribute. But I do snicker at the brainless masses who complain how rich those people are while they are standing in line with their $100 tickets.

But throwing around lawsuits and becoming paranoid Nazi control freaks over everything I own in my own home with reckless abandon is just as bad if not worse. If we let this DRM panic get out of hand, before long, expect your microwave to have a internet connection, such that if you are caught popping a bag of popcorn while there is a movie in your DVD player, you are billed theatre prices for the popcorn. Also, the sensor on your DVD player sees that two friends are watching with you, so you get billed the additional $9.50 a ticket before you are allowed to hit play. And if you tamper with your microwave or bypass it by poping it on your stove top, you are guilty of violating the DMCA and face 10 years jail time and $250,000 fine. Extreme, but so close to the idea behind DRM that it's a a legit comparison. Anybody remember the Circuit City Divx DVDs that were strictly pay per view? They failed because consumers flocked to the non-DRM alternative. What alternative is there when they are forced with only DRM formats? Thats right, the bit torrent networks slow to a crawl from the excessive demand.

I think 'id' has it right.. Quake was what, 1995? Not even 10 years later, they released the source code and made it free for public use. Their choice, sure, but I commend a company that understands that it has to constantly innovate and release new products to make a living. I do not support the the company that exists for 20 years contributing and innovating absolutely jack squat while they subsist on intellectual property lawsuits without having ever produced a product.

I'm not proposing that artists are not entitled to compensation, but I am growing sick and tired of the "find a way to charge money for nothing on a continuous basis" get rich quick schemes that some of these industries are aspiring to these days. Related, but off topic, I am of the opinion that companies that do not actually produce something within a few years of filing for a patent, they lose rights to that idea for being squatters. I'm sick of hearing about companies that sneakily patented some vague general idea that is common sense 50 years ago because they worded it a certain way, sitting in the dark, waiting until that idea becomes widely adopted as part of society, then all of the sudden they want a slice of the pie only when someone else is successful. If they were so concerned about their copyrights being violated why didn't they try to stop it before the other guy made millions? Because they just want a effortless slice of the pie, thats why. Copyrighting vague ideas and common sense and filing lawsuits is the new get rich quick scheme.

Locks on your car, good for you. What if those locks where controlled by the dealer whenever they wanted, and there was a credit card slot right next to the handle and it was illegal to take it off under the DMCA? Hell, why are performance chips and after market modifications allowed? Some manufacturers go so far as to make it more difficult to modify your car's computer because they have other cars with the same computer and the same engine, but with more horsepower that they can sell for a higher price (Intel and multiplier locking comes to mind immediately...) Wouldn't circumventing that violate the DMCA? Who cares if you already paid for the car? It's not really yours after all, you're just paying $30,000 for a license for the right to use it in only in the ways the dealer says you can. That includes nickle and diming you every time you turn on the radio, use the wipers, the trunk, the AC, etc.

But it's not like that for cars, why should we accept it on our cell phones and DVD players? We don't put our credit card number on file with Microsoft so they can charge us $0.25 every time we change our desktop background, why do we accept essentially the same behavior from mobile phone providers?

I just wish people bought what they thought was worth paying for and we didn't need DRM. Oh wait, thats already happening... all the fuss is just the death cries of a dying industry struggling to justify it's own existence. And dying for reasons other than P2P and copying. You think people weren't already noticing the dishonesty of things like CDs being purposely under filled and under utilized and spread thin long before they could download MP3s? Don't believe that? Then why is the PS2 so successful, even the best selling console more than 5 years later even amongst next generation systems, even though it was the easiest system to pirate for from day one? Success stories like Microsoft and the PS2, two things more widely pirated than anything else, show that piracy is indeed a marginal problem and not the big dilemma that Hollywood would have you believe it is.

(And contrary to popular belief it was not rampant piracy that killed the Dreamcast, but lack of developers and dying consumer confidence in Sega after abandoning the Sega CD, 32X, Saturn, etc. Piracy is always a convenient scapegoat for a intellectual property based company digging it's own grave)

I do fully embrace capitalism and believe that producers of intangible content are entitled to compensation for the use of their works. But I also know capitalism, like communism, has flaws and grey areas. Unlimited monopolies is one of those areas. Hence the 'limited time exclusivity' clause. Someone else could just as easily come up with the same idea or written the same poem or come up with the same name for their store as you, they don't have to lose out forever just because you got the copyright first. By that same logic, we aren't paying someone royalties every time we sing 'mary had a little lamb' or every time we utilize a spring or a round object attached to an axle in our products, because someone once came up with that as an original idea over a million years ago. After a while, when you have enough people together, an idea, a word, a song, whatever, becomes common knowledge and is no longer something that can hold a copyright for the same reason I cannot copyright the word 'the'.

 

[tatteredpotato]

I swear the record execs. just sit in their offices and plot ways to make life more difficult for their legitimate customers all while pirates get complete freedom with their content.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: BlameCanada
I swear the record execs. just sit in their offices and plot ways to make life more difficult for their legitimate customers all while pirates get complete freedom with their content.

The moral and technically legal thing to do is pay for content that is worth paying for but pirate it anyway for your own use.

I have plenty of DVDs and PC games that are unopened, including my legitimate copy of Windows XP Pro. I use the cracked versions because they are more convenient.

Like Bill Gates himself said, best thing to do is buy a CD and rip it to a DRM free format, and I agree with him 100%.

And what about sharing files with friends? If I send someone a MP3 from my CD and they don't have one is that wrong? It's no different than if I loaned him the CD. He could delete the file each time and when he wants to borrow it again I'd just send it to him again just like loaning the CD. If its a matter of playing one license in two locations at once, how is that different than letting someone listen to it over the phone or recording it in a cassette deck? Nobody has every cried about those things in the past, but all of the sudden with 100% accurate digital file formats and MP3 and HDTV, its suddenly a big deal?

Why, because its 100% exact and there is no incentive to buy your own copy like you might if you had only a tape recording of the CD? Fine, I'll make sure I only give my friends my ripped MP3s in 256 kbps formats instead of 320 kbps and it will be the same thing. If they want 320 kbps they can buy their own CD and rip it :laugh:

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: exdeath

Why is it different? Why should one person be required to exchange a day of labor for a fair days pay, while another person can exchange 1 day of labor for 99 years of pay and have it guaranteed by the government? Before recordable media, musicians earned their money by working hard and traveling the country giving concerts and actually performing., and they still do it today. CDs are just icing on the cake. Sports players, regardless if you think what they make is ridiculous or not, at least they out out in the field performing for that money. They don't play one game, make a recording of it, and sit on their butt for 99 years making money off of it while suing anybody who downloads a copy or happens to watch their friends copy for free.

Don't get me wrong, I do support people being paid for their work, but when does 'fair compensation for hard work' become 'wanting a free ride for all eternity' and suing anybody who doesn't fork over their $20 every time they happen to hear a song playing on any radio they walk by without owning the CD?

First of all, it doesn't take one day to make an album or movie. It can take months and years. Even then you're not guaranteed any money whatsoever.

Would you pick up garbage for a year on the HOPE that you might get paid?

This is the chance you take as an artist.

Secondly, if you buy a CD... you can listen to it over and over and over, every day for the rest of your life. One day of garbage pickup = one day. You still have to pay for the next day.

Also, you glossed over the pension analogy. Garbage men get pensions-- money they can live on long after they're able to pick up garbage. Musicians do not. Are you against pensions too? They get to sit on their butt for the rest of their life as well.

Obviously, I wish DRM was seamless and completely transparent. But I also wish people wouldn't pirate content with reckless abandon. In the same way, I wish I didn't have to locks on my car. It's annoying to turn the key everyday. But it seems people want to steal my car. Can a good car thief get by the lock/ alarm easily? Of course. But it does slow down people.

I'm not a garbage man so I can't comment on their compensation, but that was only an example that someone else posted. I could just as easily pick another occupation such as a fry cook; fry cooks should be able to work hard for a year, and get paid for life after they quit, right? They don't get pension. I am a programmer and aspiring game developer, so I do understand the other end of it from a limited perspective.

And as I said, I do agree that artists, be the work a book, game, movie, or music recording, deserve compensation for their work. And I don't fault dumb ass athletes and actors for having millions regardless of how ridiculous I may thing it is, because nobody is forcing me to contribute. But I do snicker at the brainless masses who complain how rich those people are while they are standing in line with their $100 tickets.

But throwing around lawsuits and becoming paranoid Nazi control freaks over everything I own in my own home with reckless abandon is just as bad if not worse. If we let this DRM panic get out of hand, before long, expect your microwave to have a internet connection, such that if you are caught popping a bag of popcorn while there is a movie in your DVD player, you are billed theatre prices for the popcorn. Also, the sensor on your DVD player sees that two friends are watching with you, so you get billed the additional $9.50 a ticket before you are allowed to hit play. And if you tamper with your microwave or bypass it by poping it on your stove top, you are guilty of violating the DMCA and face 10 years jail time and $250,000 fine. Extreme, but so close to the idea behind DRM that it's a a legit comparison. Anybody remember the Circuit City Divx DVDs that were strictly pay per view? They failed because consumers flocked to the non-DRM alternative. What alternative is there when they are forced with only DRM formats? Thats right, the bit torrent networks slow to a crawl from the excessive demand.

I think 'id' has it right.. Quake was what, 1995? Not even 10 years later, they released the source code and made it free for public use. Their choice, sure, but I commend a company that understands that it has to constantly innovate and release new products to make a living. I do not support the the company that exists for 20 years contributing and innovating absolutely jack squat while they subsist on intellectual property lawsuits without having ever produced a product.

I'm not proposing that artists are not entitled to compensation, but I am growing sick and tired of the "find a way to charge money for nothing on a continuous basis" get rich quick schemes that some of these industries are aspiring to these days. Related, but off topic, I am of the opinion that companies that do not actually produce something within a few years of filing for a patent, they lose rights to that idea for being squatters. I'm sick of hearing about companies that sneakily patented some vague general idea that is common sense 50 years ago because they worded it a certain way, sitting in the dark, waiting until that idea becomes widely adopted as part of society, then all of the sudden they want a slice of the pie only when someone else is successful. If they were so concerned about their copyrights being violated why didn't they try to stop it before the other guy made millions? Because they just want a effortless slice of the pie, thats why. Copyrighting vague ideas and common sense and filing lawsuits is the new get rich quick scheme.

Locks on your car, good for you. What if those locks where controlled by the dealer whenever they wanted, and there was a credit card slot right next to the handle and it was illegal to take it off under the DMCA? Hell, why are performance chips and after market modifications allowed? Some manufacturers go so far as to make it more difficult to modify your car's computer because they have other cars with the same computer and the same engine, but with more horsepower that they can sell for a higher price (Intel and multiplier locking comes to mind immediately...) Wouldn't circumventing that violate the DMCA? Who cares if you already paid for the car? It's not really yours after all, you're just paying $30,000 for a license for the right to use it in only in the ways the dealer says you can. That includes nickle and diming you every time you turn on the radio, use the wipers, the trunk, the AC, etc.

But it's not like that for cars, why should we accept it on our cell phones and DVD players? We don't put our credit card number on file with Microsoft so they can charge us $0.25 every time we change our desktop background, why do we accept essentially the same behavior from mobile phone providers?

I just wish people bought what they thought was worth paying for and we didn't need DRM. Oh wait, thats already happening... all the fuss is just the death cries of a dying industry struggling to justify it's own existence. And dying for reasons other than P2P and copying. You think people weren't already noticing the dishonesty of things like CDs being purposely under filled and under utilized and spread thin long before they could download MP3s? Don't believe that? Then why is the PS2 so successful, even the best selling console more than 5 years later even amongst next generation systems, even though it was the easiest system to pirate for from day one? Success stories like Microsoft and the PS2, two things more widely pirated than anything else, show that piracy is indeed a marginal problem and not the big dilemma that Hollywood would have you believe it is.

(And contrary to popular belief it was not rampant piracy that killed the Dreamcast, but lack of developers and dying consumer confidence in Sega after abandoning the Sega CD, 32X, Saturn, etc. Piracy is always a convenient scapegoat for a intellectual property based company digging it's own grave)

I do fully embrace capitalism and believe that producers of intangible content are entitled to compensation for the use of their works. But I also know capitalism, like communism, has flaws and grey areas. Unlimited monopolies is one of those areas. Hence the 'limited time exclusivity' clause. Someone else could just as easily come up with the same idea or written the same poem or come up with the same name for their store as you, they don't have to lose out forever just because you got the copyright first. By that same logic, we aren't paying someone royalties every time we sing 'mary had a little lamb' or every time we utilize a spring or a round object attached to an axle in our products, because someone once came up with that as an original idea over a million years ago. After a while, when you have enough people together, an idea, a word, a song, whatever, becomes common knowledge and is no longer something that can hold a copyright for the same reason I cannot copyright the word 'the'.

Excellent points!!! Bravo!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: tangent1138
why are you so angry at me? i wish you no ill, why would you do the same to me?

Actually, as someone who supports 100+ year copyrights, you do wish me ill. You wish all Americans ill. You want your intellectual property protected, but you don't ever want it to enter the public domain as was originally intended.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: tangent1138
what i don't understand is the pirates' sense of entitlement. they seem to feel they have the right to steal material and throw around words like "censorship".

:roll:
As opposed to behemoth corporations who seem to feel entitled to government protection of their business model? Talk about sense of entitlement.

These companies have bribed their way to eternal copyright. They attack fair use. Screw them, I hope they wither and die. Time for the existing entertainment industry to crash and burn, let something new take their place.

yes, you're right... government protection of a business model is stupid.
i think i'll go down to the BMW dealership and steal a car. The cops better not protect their business model by stopping me.

wake up. piracy is rampant and in case you haven't noticed, entertainment is one of the few things this country does well anymore.

cars? japan.
cell phones? korea.
computers? china.

the only thing we do really well is software, games, movies.

Maybe I'm overlooking something incredibly obvious here, but how can you say China makes better computers? Both Intel and AMD are US-based companies.

 

[tatteredpotato]

Originally posted by: Special K


Maybe I'm overlooking something incredibly obvious here, but how can you say China makes better computers? Both Intel and AMD are US-based companies.

Perhaps he's referring to system builders? China may make the computers, but most of the parts are all American design.

 

[potato28]

Originally posted by: Kirby64
Mmmm, I forsee the banstick being thrown around within this topic.

/lawnchair
/popcorn

I completely agree with you. Wanna beer?
/:beer:

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: tangent1138
why are you so angry at me? i wish you no ill, why would you do the same to me?

Actually, as someone who supports 100+ year copyrights, you do wish me ill. You wish all Americans ill. You want your intellectual property protected, but you don't ever want it to enter the public domain as was originally intended.

You're putting words in my mouth. I think it should enter public domain after the artists death.

I'm confused that you translate me disagreeing with you into wishing you ill will.
I don't. I'm just a capitalist who wants to be paid for my hard work. You skew more towards a communist philosophy.

I understand you but I disagree with you. I wish you nothing but good luck.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: exdeath


I'm not a garbage man so I can't comment on their compensation, but that was only an example that someone else posted. I could just as easily pick another occupation such as a fry cook; fry cooks should be able to work hard for a year, and get paid for life after they quit, right? They don't get pension. I am a programmer and aspiring game developer, so I do understand the other end of it from a limited perspective.


[...snipped...]

Excellent post!

BRAVO!!!
:thumbsup:

 

[Kirby64]

Originally posted by: potato28

Originally posted by: Kirby64
Mmmm, I forsee the banstick being thrown around within this topic.

/lawnchair
/popcorn

I completely agree with you. Wanna beer?
/:beer:

Don't mind if I do... have some popcorn

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: tangent1138
why are you so angry at me? i wish you no ill, why would you do the same to me?

Actually, as someone who supports 100+ year copyrights, you do wish me ill. You wish all Americans ill. You want your intellectual property protected, but you don't ever want it to enter the public domain as was originally intended.

You're putting words in my mouth. I think it should enter public domain after the artists death.

I'm confused that you translate me disagreeing with you into wishing you ill will.
I don't. I'm just a capitalist who wants to be paid for my hard work. You skew more towards a communist philosophy.

I understand you but I disagree with you. I wish you nothing but good luck.

This forum is hilarious. The freaks in P&N consider me a neocon, while OT thinks I'm a dirty commie. As a libertarian, I can understand why both sides hate me, because I support freedom and freedom doesn't jive with the authoritarians on the right and left.

Communist? Hardly, I'm for the free market. Unfortunately there is no free market when there's a government enforced monopoly. And I have no problem with a limited time monopoly because I do believe people deserve to be compensated for their work. Too bad current copyright law is beyond reasonable. When US copyright was first granted, it was 21 years. Given the advances in technology and the ability to spread media quickly, if anything this should have been cut down to 10 or 15, not increased to 100. If you can't make a profit on your work in 21 years, that's nobody's problem but your own.

 

[mcturkey]

Originally posted by: tangent1138
you're right. we should extend the patent to 50 years. you should write your elected officials about that.

all i know is that, as a content producer, if i work really hard and create something good, it seems right that i should be able to sell it throughout my lifetime and reap the benefits of my hard work. if people don't see value in my work, then they don't have to buy it.

I am willing to accept copyright lasting through the lifetime of the creator. That is not unreasonable to me. However, if the "creator" is a collective group, then it should expire when the last member of that group dies. This means that 95 years is too long. Nobody has ever lived for 95 years after creating any sort of artistic work to my knowledge. I do not feel that corporations should be able to own a copyright, at least not beyond the duration of the creator's lifespan.

As for patents, I think the persistent argument for the short expiration on them is that most inventions have a limited lifespan before being significantly advanced, and those that do have longer lifespans need to be public domain in the best interest of progress.

As to whomever it was who asked where in the Constitution it said that a person here was entitled to define "limited time", I believe the phrase "We the people" should be a starting indication, closely followed up by any mention of voting. Everyone here of voting age has an impact on this, albeit a bit indirectly. It is up to us to elect officials who will represent our desires and interests rather than those of corporations.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: BlameCanada

Originally posted by: Special K


Maybe I'm overlooking something incredibly obvious here, but how can you say China makes better computers? Both Intel and AMD are US-based companies.

Perhaps he's referring to system builders? China may make the computers, but most of the parts are all American design.

Cheap manufacturing due to lack of regulations, among other reasons.

People think all the electronics in the world come from China and Japan because the sticker on the box says so.

Open up the box and take a look at the actual intellectually derived top end components inside, among them:

Intel
AMD
Motorola
nVidia
Burr Brown
Texas Instruments
IBM
Analog Devices
Micron/Crucial

Thats all I can think of at the moment, but there are many others.

We also have Sony, Toshiba, Realtek, ATi, Sharp, Samsung, Creative, etc. all non American companies too. But don't think that America doesn't have any ingenuity or technology just because the people that put it all in the box slapped a 'Made in Taiwan' sticker on the side. This stuff is made all over the place, and more often than not, the technology and know how originated in America. It's just cheaper to mass produce the end result in countries with cheaper labor and more lax regulations.

PS: IBM designed and patented most of the Cell processor, and the Power core is a joint IBM/Motorola architecture. American companies developed the chip that Sony likes to brag about. Just a FYI for the Sony fanbois :laugh: The RSX is designed by nVidia, also an American company But hey, it says Sony on the box, so believe what you want...

Even still I'm sure the raw silicon is mined or harvested in Africa, the tin and copper mined who knows where, etc.

This is a very good read, everyone on Anandtech should read it:

http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Essays/rdPncl1.html

 

[Cabages]

Originally posted by: Kirby64

Originally posted by: potato28

Originally posted by: Kirby64
Mmmm, I forsee the banstick being thrown around within this topic.

/lawnchair
/popcorn

I completely agree with you. Wanna beer?
/:beer:

Don't mind if I do... have some popcorn

/porn

circlejerk?

 

[exdeath]

I, Pencil

Reposted at the end here to bump the thread and make sure nobody misses it. Read. It may change your life and your understanding of the world for the better.

 

[cw42]

well, this is by far the longest thread i've ever started. :]

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: exdeath
I, Pencil

Reposted at the end here to bump the thread and make sure nobody misses it. Read. It may change your life and your understanding of the world for the better.

Saved. for when i get time to read it.

thanks.

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: Cabages

Originally posted by: Kirby64

Originally posted by: potato28

Originally posted by: Kirby64
Mmmm, I forsee the banstick being thrown around within this topic.

/lawnchair
/popcorn

I completely agree with you. Wanna beer?
/:beer:

Don't mind if I do... have some popcorn

/porn

circlejerk?

What is it with americans and circlejerking?

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: exdeath

Why is it different? Why should one person be required to exchange a day of labor for a fair days pay, while another person can exchange 1 day of labor for 99 years of pay and have it guaranteed by the government? Before recordable media, musicians earned their money by working hard and traveling the country giving concerts and actually performing., and they still do it today. CDs are just icing on the cake. Sports players, regardless if you think what they make is ridiculous or not, at least they out out in the field performing for that money. They don't play one game, make a recording of it, and sit on their butt for 99 years making money off of it while suing anybody who downloads a copy or happens to watch their friends copy for free.

Don't get me wrong, I do support people being paid for their work, but when does 'fair compensation for hard work' become 'wanting a free ride for all eternity' and suing anybody who doesn't fork over their $20 every time they happen to hear a song playing on any radio they walk by without owning the CD?

First of all, it doesn't take one day to make an album or movie. It can take months and years. Even then you're not guaranteed any money whatsoever.

Would you pick up garbage for a year on the HOPE that you might get paid?

This is the chance you take as an artist.

Secondly, if you buy a CD... you can listen to it over and over and over, every day for the rest of your life. One day of garbage pickup = one day. You still have to pay for the next day.

Also, you glossed over the pension analogy. Garbage men get pensions-- money they can live on long after they're able to pick up garbage. Musicians do not. Are you against pensions too? They get to sit on their butt for the rest of their life as well.

Obviously, I wish DRM was seamless and completely transparent. But I also wish people wouldn't pirate content with reckless abandon. In the same way, I wish I didn't have to locks on my car. It's annoying to turn the key everyday. But it seems people want to steal my car. Can a good car thief get by the lock/ alarm easily? Of course. But it does slow down people.

I'm not a garbage man so I can't comment on their compensation, but that was only an example that someone else posted. I could just as easily pick another occupation such as a fry cook; fry cooks should be able to work hard for a year, and get paid for life after they quit, right? They don't get pension. I am a programmer and aspiring game developer, so I do understand the other end of it from a limited perspective.

And as I said, I do agree that artists, be the work a book, game, movie, or music recording, deserve compensation for their work. And I don't fault dumb ass athletes and actors for having millions regardless of how ridiculous I may thing it is, because nobody is forcing me to contribute. But I do snicker at the brainless masses who complain how rich those people are while they are standing in line with their $100 tickets.

But throwing around lawsuits and becoming paranoid Nazi control freaks over everything I own in my own home with reckless abandon is just as bad if not worse. If we let this DRM panic get out of hand, before long, expect your microwave to have a internet connection, such that if you are caught popping a bag of popcorn while there is a movie in your DVD player, you are billed theatre prices for the popcorn. Also, the sensor on your DVD player sees that two friends are watching with you, so you get billed the additional $9.50 a ticket before you are allowed to hit play. And if you tamper with your microwave or bypass it by poping it on your stove top, you are guilty of violating the DMCA and face 10 years jail time and $250,000 fine. Extreme, but so close to the idea behind DRM that it's a a legit comparison. Anybody remember the Circuit City Divx DVDs that were strictly pay per view? They failed because consumers flocked to the non-DRM alternative. What alternative is there when they are forced with only DRM formats? Thats right, the bit torrent networks slow to a crawl from the excessive demand.

I think 'id' has it right.. Quake was what, 1995? Not even 10 years later, they released the source code and made it free for public use. Their choice, sure, but I commend a company that understands that it has to constantly innovate and release new products to make a living. I do not support the the company that exists for 20 years contributing and innovating absolutely jack squat while they subsist on intellectual property lawsuits without having ever produced a product.

I'm not proposing that artists are not entitled to compensation, but I am growing sick and tired of the "find a way to charge money for nothing on a continuous basis" get rich quick schemes that some of these industries are aspiring to these days. Related, but off topic, I am of the opinion that companies that do not actually produce something within a few years of filing for a patent, they lose rights to that idea for being squatters. I'm sick of hearing about companies that sneakily patented some vague general idea that is common sense 50 years ago because they worded it a certain way, sitting in the dark, waiting until that idea becomes widely adopted as part of society, then all of the sudden they want a slice of the pie only when someone else is successful. If they were so concerned about their copyrights being violated why didn't they try to stop it before the other guy made millions? Because they just want a effortless slice of the pie, thats why. Copyrighting vague ideas and common sense and filing lawsuits is the new get rich quick scheme.

Locks on your car, good for you. What if those locks where controlled by the dealer whenever they wanted, and there was a credit card slot right next to the handle and it was illegal to take it off under the DMCA? Hell, why are performance chips and after market modifications allowed? Some manufacturers go so far as to make it more difficult to modify your car's computer because they have other cars with the same computer and the same engine, but with more horsepower that they can sell for a higher price (Intel and multiplier locking comes to mind immediately...) Wouldn't circumventing that violate the DMCA? Who cares if you already paid for the car? It's not really yours after all, you're just paying $30,000 for a license for the right to use it in only in the ways the dealer says you can. That includes nickle and diming you every time you turn on the radio, use the wipers, the trunk, the AC, etc.

But it's not like that for cars, why should we accept it on our cell phones and DVD players? We don't put our credit card number on file with Microsoft so they can charge us $0.25 every time we change our desktop background, why do we accept essentially the same behavior from mobile phone providers?

I just wish people bought what they thought was worth paying for and we didn't need DRM. Oh wait, thats already happening... all the fuss is just the death cries of a dying industry struggling to justify it's own existence. And dying for reasons other than P2P and copying. You think people weren't already noticing the dishonesty of things like CDs being purposely under filled and under utilized and spread thin long before they could download MP3s? Don't believe that? Then why is the PS2 so successful, even the best selling console more than 5 years later even amongst next generation systems, even though it was the easiest system to pirate for from day one? Success stories like Microsoft and the PS2, two things more widely pirated than anything else, show that piracy is indeed a marginal problem and not the big dilemma that Hollywood would have you believe it is.

(And contrary to popular belief it was not rampant piracy that killed the Dreamcast, but lack of developers and dying consumer confidence in Sega after abandoning the Sega CD, 32X, Saturn, etc. Piracy is always a convenient scapegoat for a intellectual property based company digging it's own grave)

I do fully embrace capitalism and believe that producers of intangible content are entitled to compensation for the use of their works. But I also know capitalism, like communism, has flaws and grey areas. Unlimited monopolies is one of those areas. Hence the 'limited time exclusivity' clause. Someone else could just as easily come up with the same idea or written the same poem or come up with the same name for their store as you, they don't have to lose out forever just because you got the copyright first. By that same logic, we aren't paying someone royalties every time we sing 'mary had a little lamb' or every time we utilize a spring or a round object attached to an axle in our products, because someone once came up with that as an original idea over a million years ago. After a while, when you have enough people together, an idea, a word, a song, whatever, becomes common knowledge and is no longer something that can hold a copyright for the same reason I cannot copyright the word 'the'.

Cliffs: Anita Peterson hates America. Shame on you!

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: tami
it's like cursing in a classroom... can you declare freedom of speech? the likely consequence is detention.

I learned in high school that cursing is not held under freedom of speech . It's the concept of not having the right to just go off and spew offensive words. But offensive is such a relative term that it's hard to gauge.

Personally, I think the Digg thing is completely out of line. The users should realize that the website is trying to avoid legal issues with posting a proprietary key. But you see, people just don't get this... they'll take any situation and blow it out of proportion... some because they love to see the response (and this was quite a big one) and some because they have some freedom of speech bug up their ass.

 

[DaWhim]

hah...it is so funny. the AACS shouldn't have done anything. now they got all the publicity they do not want at the first time. I see the story about digg make it into most mainstream newspaper.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: tangent1138
why are you so angry at me? i wish you no ill, why would you do the same to me?

Actually, as someone who supports 100+ year copyrights, you do wish me ill. You wish all Americans ill. You want your intellectual property protected, but you don't ever want it to enter the public domain as was originally intended.

You're putting words in my mouth. I think it should enter public domain after the artists death.

I'm confused that you translate me disagreeing with you into wishing you ill will.
I don't. I'm just a capitalist who wants to be paid for my hard work. You skew more towards a communist philosophy.

I understand you but I disagree with you. I wish you nothing but good luck.

This forum is hilarious. The freaks in P&N consider me a neocon, while OT thinks I'm a dirty commie. As a libertarian, I can understand why both sides hate me, because I support freedom and freedom doesn't jive with the authoritarians on the right and left.

Communist? Hardly, I'm for the free market. Unfortunately there is no free market when there's a government enforced monopoly. And I have no problem with a limited time monopoly because I do believe people deserve to be compensated for their work. Too bad current copyright law is beyond reasonable. When US copyright was first granted, it was 21 years. Given the advances in technology and the ability to spread media quickly, if anything this should have been cut down to 10 or 15, not increased to 100. If you can't make a profit on your work in 21 years, that's nobody's problem but your own.

I'm with you.

Stanford Law professor and copyright expert Lawrence Lessig (pictured right) writes, "Copyright has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all possible uses of his work. Its purpose instead is to secure a limited monopoly over certain ways in which creative work is exploited, so as to give the authors (i.e., composers and performers) an incentive to create, and thus, in turn, to 'promote the Progress of Science'."

In fact, it's beyond argument today that the U.S. copyright laws recognize no absolute right in authors to prevent others from copying or exploiting their work. Rather, copyright laws grant authors limited rights in their works solely to an extent that Congress believes that creation and dissemination of their works are encouraged. In the long term, authors' intents and interests have always been secondary to that of the public.

From here.