what worries me most? Of THOSE choices, I voted about the patents. Why? Well let me examine the others, in no particular order.
For starters, the internet is NOT great just the way it is. There are too many areas into which too many governments have stuck their grubby fat fingers, and now it's hard to know what's legal where. Solutions anyone? Cuz I doubt there are any solutions short of what happens at the end of "Escape from L.A.", and that's not exactly a "solution".
Rampant phishing and spyware. Well, if you fall victim to either of those (and I have), I have one thing to say to you: pay attention to what the hell you're doing when you're clicking around the net! Unless you're a hacker, yourself, you're not going to catch these guys.
Government spying on phone and internet. Well, what I CAN say is that I'm in the military and I work closely with the intel community. There are a BAZILLION regulations that keep us from "collecting" on U.S. citizens; yes, even the dreaded Patriot Act has limitations.
I would probably be more concerned with the DRM restrictions if anyone, anywhere would ever actually say what the hell that is. I'm admittedly not a super-guru when it comes to these things, but I've looked. EVERYTHING I've been able to find talks about DRM without actually defining it. Which basically means that since I'm obviously not "in the loop", then it doesn't apply to me so I don't care.
And finally I get to Net Neutrality being in danger.
!!!GOOD!!!
I know I just slapped some of you in the face with a sledge hammer, so at least allow me to lay out my argument. Net neutrality, at least in the US, is just one more way that the government is trying to stifle capitalism, by making it ILLEGAL for ISP's to make a profit of any kind. Now, is there currently a problem with the way ISPs do business? In a lot of areas, yes. But legislation isn't the way to deal with those problems; actions like boycotts, however, ARE the way. If companies don't have customers, they don't make money. If they don't make money, they go bye-bye, and, as long as "Big Brother" doesn't have his grubby fingers in the pot, a better company will step in and fill that gap.
Primary point to all this rambling is two-fold:
1) stop blaming the government for YOUR failings
2) stop expecting the government to step in on your behalf, because they'll only step in on THEIR OWN behalf.
You're telling me that allowing you to know what you're buying BEFORE you buy will actually entice you to buy it?!?!?!?!
That's complete rubbish and I'll prove it with examples from other industries:
1)Automobile industry doesn't let you test...wait, damn yeah they do
2)Home Electronics stores don't let you rubberneck...wait, damn yeah they do
3)Restaurants don't tell you what's in their...wait, damn yeah they do
4)Clothing stores don't let you try on...wait, damn yeah they do
Well, it MUST be rubbish, because the entertainment industry says so!
Guys, I don't think Brooks is in opposition to you on this. All of you seem to have overlooked one statement, and taken EVERYTHING else out of context:
"It's still a ridiculous argument even when framed accurately."
I find it terribly amusing that you are, in fact, the one who is missing the point.
The point IS NOT whether or not the punishments will discourage file sharing. Of course it will, if even only a little.
The point IS that these punishments will not encourage people to pay more money. In fact, if this happens, people like myself -- who are NOT file sharers, anyway -- will intentionally boycott products by the supposed "offended party". Thereby DECREASING revenue, and they'll fall victim to what's known as "shooting yourself in the foot".
If DeepNines gets another $5M, Altitude is still left with a $3.5M profit. Unless you consider that they were given an $8M loan, in which case it's an effective $4.5M LOSS.
Not exactly what one would consider a "savvy investment".
"think about how different that really is to normal in inheritance"
OK ok, since so many of you can't grasp the concept that copyright royalties and normal inheritance really COMPLETELY different, let's go ahead and compare them.
Q: If you have $1M, and you leave it to your children, what did they inherit?
A: $1,000,000,000. Duh
Q: If you write a book, and leave that story to your children, what did they inherit?
A: A freaking story! Words!
Unless you are talented enough to put them together in such a way that entices people to buy them, words are completely WORTHLESS.
You're right. We should be paying for the works of "the writer's soul". But we should be paying the WRITER, and ONLY the writer (yes, yes, the publishing and printing companies need to make a profit, too, but that's not a point of contention).
The point you have completely glossed over, is that the heirs of Fitzgerald have done NOTHING to deserve any compensation whatsoever for his works.
Why MUST someone benefit? The BEST answer is that NO ONE should actually benefit from it anymore. Publishing and printing companies should still produce copies, but at or near cost.
The whole point is that, because SOMEONE already paid for a copy of the movie, they shouldn't HAVE to pay anything else; especially since the club is watching for enjoyment, not charging to the general public for profit.
So wait are saying that if 25 people own a copy, and each watches that movie with a friend (total 2 ppl per viewing), that's the same thing as 50 people watching the movie in the same room? That's ridiculous! The math just doesn't match up!!!
RSS
Twitter
Let's see... (as DJ)
what worries me most? Of THOSE choices, I voted about the patents. Why? Well let me examine the others, in no particular order.
For starters, the internet is NOT great just the way it is. There are too many areas into which too many governments have stuck their grubby fat fingers, and now it's hard to know what's legal where. Solutions anyone? Cuz I doubt there are any solutions short of what happens at the end of "Escape from L.A.", and that's not exactly a "solution".
Rampant phishing and spyware. Well, if you fall victim to either of those (and I have), I have one thing to say to you: pay attention to what the hell you're doing when you're clicking around the net! Unless you're a hacker, yourself, you're not going to catch these guys.
Government spying on phone and internet. Well, what I CAN say is that I'm in the military and I work closely with the intel community. There are a BAZILLION regulations that keep us from "collecting" on U.S. citizens; yes, even the dreaded Patriot Act has limitations.
I would probably be more concerned with the DRM restrictions if anyone, anywhere would ever actually say what the hell that is. I'm admittedly not a super-guru when it comes to these things, but I've looked. EVERYTHING I've been able to find talks about DRM without actually defining it. Which basically means that since I'm obviously not "in the loop", then it doesn't apply to me so I don't care.
And finally I get to Net Neutrality being in danger.
!!!GOOD!!!
I know I just slapped some of you in the face with a sledge hammer, so at least allow me to lay out my argument. Net neutrality, at least in the US, is just one more way that the government is trying to stifle capitalism, by making it ILLEGAL for ISP's to make a profit of any kind. Now, is there currently a problem with the way ISPs do business? In a lot of areas, yes. But legislation isn't the way to deal with those problems; actions like boycotts, however, ARE the way. If companies don't have customers, they don't make money. If they don't make money, they go bye-bye, and, as long as "Big Brother" doesn't have his grubby fingers in the pot, a better company will step in and fill that gap.
Primary point to all this rambling is two-fold:
1) stop blaming the government for YOUR failings
2) stop expecting the government to step in on your behalf, because they'll only step in on THEIR OWN behalf.
Re: (as DJ)
Wait Wait Wait Wait Wait Wait WAIT!!
You're telling me that allowing you to know what you're buying BEFORE you buy will actually entice you to buy it?!?!?!?!
That's complete rubbish and I'll prove it with examples from other industries:
1)Automobile industry doesn't let you test...wait, damn yeah they do
2)Home Electronics stores don't let you rubberneck...wait, damn yeah they do
3)Restaurants don't tell you what's in their...wait, damn yeah they do
4)Clothing stores don't let you try on...wait, damn yeah they do
Well, it MUST be rubbish, because the entertainment industry says so!
Re: Oh, come on (as DJ)
Guys, I don't think Brooks is in opposition to you on this. All of you seem to have overlooked one statement, and taken EVERYTHING else out of context:
"It's still a ridiculous argument even when framed accurately."
Re: Re: (as DJ)
I find it terribly amusing that you are, in fact, the one who is missing the point.
The point IS NOT whether or not the punishments will discourage file sharing. Of course it will, if even only a little.
The point IS that these punishments will not encourage people to pay more money. In fact, if this happens, people like myself -- who are NOT file sharers, anyway -- will intentionally boycott products by the supposed "offended party". Thereby DECREASING revenue, and they'll fall victim to what's known as "shooting yourself in the foot".
Re: Re: Re: (as DJ)
...and so on....
Re: The Telegraph column (as DJ)
That's just plain lazy!!!
GJ!
Re: Re: Your math is off (as DJ)
$8M + $25M - $10.1M - $11M - $1.25M - $2.1M = $8.5M
If DeepNines gets another $5M, Altitude is still left with a $3.5M profit. Unless you consider that they were given an $8M loan, in which case it's an effective $4.5M LOSS.
Not exactly what one would consider a "savvy investment".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It (as DJ)
Ah sweet ignorance, I love it so.....
Re: Re: Re: Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It (as DJ)
I should clarify. By "no one" I mean that literally; no one person, e.g. Fitzgerald's heirs.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re rewards, etc. (as DJ)
Point conceded.
Re: (as DJ)
"think about how different that really is to normal in inheritance"
OK ok, since so many of you can't grasp the concept that copyright royalties and normal inheritance really COMPLETELY different, let's go ahead and compare them.
Q: If you have $1M, and you leave it to your children, what did they inherit?
A: $1,000,000,000. Duh
Q: If you write a book, and leave that story to your children, what did they inherit?
A: A freaking story! Words!
Unless you are talented enough to put them together in such a way that entices people to buy them, words are completely WORTHLESS.
Re: Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It (as DJ)
Again, I contend that once a copyright lapses, either by time or the death of the author, that NO ONE should make a profit off the works.
If the publisher wants to continue printing, then a pittance, perhaps, just for their trouble of printing it. But that's it.
Re: Re: Re: re rewards, etc. (as DJ)
You're right. We should be paying for the works of "the writer's soul". But we should be paying the WRITER, and ONLY the writer (yes, yes, the publishing and printing companies need to make a profit, too, but that's not a point of contention).
The point you have completely glossed over, is that the heirs of Fitzgerald have done NOTHING to deserve any compensation whatsoever for his works.
NOTHING!!!!
Re: (as DJ)
Heh. We cover patents here, too. And most of us don't like 'em either.
Re: Who should benefit then? (as DJ)
Why MUST someone benefit? The BEST answer is that NO ONE should actually benefit from it anymore. Publishing and printing companies should still produce copies, but at or near cost.
Re: Re: genus and creativity need to have unique rewards (as DJ)
"I certainly wouldn't want my child to be that entitled...."
You hit the nail on the head there. Too many people in this country feel that, because they EXIST they are entitled to other people's earnings.
Q: If it's not your money, where does it come from?
A: Another PERSON. (key word being PERSON)
Re: (as DJ)
The whole point is that, because SOMEONE already paid for a copy of the movie, they shouldn't HAVE to pay anything else; especially since the club is watching for enjoyment, not charging to the general public for profit.
Re: (as DJ)
This isn't enough to push me over the edge, but I'm about to call for a nationwide boycott of all movie theaters; even second-run theaters.
Re: Re: Time to go Guerilla (as DJ)
Are you suggesting they don't already do that?
Re: (as DJ)
So wait are saying that if 25 people own a copy, and each watches that movie with a friend (total 2 ppl per viewing), that's the same thing as 50 people watching the movie in the same room? That's ridiculous! The math just doesn't match up!!!
/biting sarcasm