And you're a child. Calling someone gay? Really? How old are you that you'd think accusing someone of being a homosexual was a mature way to respond? Calling someone gay isn't even an insult. Either you are and you accept it or you're not and you're secure in your sexuality. Calling someone gay to insult them is like calling someone blonde.
That's just not the case. At distances greater than 3 feet, the sun emits more radiation than your phone. We're talking about a few milliwatts of radiation. Mobile phones are not strong enough to interfere with electronics at a distance. A mobile phone outside of the cockpit will not be strong enough to disrupt electronics.
Besides, the entire issue can be resolved by insulating the cockpit walls with a Faraday cage. As long as the door is shut, no emissions from the passengers will get to the instruments. The whole "turn off your devices" spiel is nothing but an ineffectual overreaction.
You want to talk about stealing? How about the fact that the content corporations have repeatedly stolen our culture from us all? How about the fact that they've stolen our freedom of speech and expression so they can have monopoly control over speech? No OOTB, the "content creators" are the real thieves and criminals.
Actually, the Earth would go rogue and leave orbit. The atmosphere and oceans would dissipate without gravity. Holding on to something will only delay the exposure to vacuum, not prevent it. To survive, we would need underground habitats sealed off from the vacuum.
"The biggest pirates are STILL just freeloading at a fraction of the sum honest people would pay for as much content."
And you think that matters in absolute terms? Does it cost the industry anything for them to have that content for free? Would those people actually be able to afford all the content they consume? No, it doesn't and they can't. But in absolute terms, they spend more money than your so-called "honest" people. The cost of letting people have that content is $0 because people that use p2p invest their own bandwidth and energy. It's free distribution for the publisher, even if it goes against their wishes, which are not sacrosanct by the way. So by comparison, $300 profit from an infringer is still $300 profit compared to $100 profit a non-infringer, which is still only $100 profit. With the cost per sale being the same, the infringer is sill generating more profit for the industry than the "honest" people.
So get off your high horse and leave your delusional concepts of morality and property rights behind.
Exactly! Give me a service where I can stream every newly released movie, every TV show at airing, and I will pay for it. We want universal, unlimited access to all content that is on-demand and in high quality. That's something I'd pay for.
Equivocation fallacy. Shoplifting and infringement are not the same.
The data bears out the facts. People who infringe spend more than people who don't and this isn't the first study that found this trend. The logical conclusion is that people that infringe more have a wider exposure to content and are more likely to find things they want to spend money on. Simply put, content is advertising. If content is advertising, I'd wager that the content industry would want to put as much content into the hands of their customers as they possibly can.
This whole storm of excrement stems from a distorted sense of property. The idea has been drilled into the head of just about every person today that, if you make something, you own it. However, this rationale forgets or disregards the fact that these works were built from the common wealth of human culture. That's something that belongs to no single person exclusively and to apply property concepts to works derived from such resources is an outright theft against every living person on Earth. Copyright is the legalized theft of human culture for the exclusive benefit of a select few.
The whole idea that we have specifically defined "authorized" uses (i.e. fair use) as opposed to absolute liberty in their use is nothing short of a cognitive distortion. I don't have to pay someone for the air that I breath, it belongs to anyone that wishes to use it. Yet, every living thing (including humans) contribute to the continued manufacturing of breathable atmosphere. Unfortunately, people still cling to this idea that they should have property rights over something that belongs to everyone equally and be allowed to extract payment for its existence. It should be free to access and use in new works at the moment of publishing.
Anyone with a capacity for rational critical thought should be able to see that the moment something is published, any hope of restricting the distribution of copies goes right out of the window. Anybody that tries to control works after publishing is a fool or insane. You'd have about as much luck controlling a published work as you would trying to recollect the feathers from a pillow torn open in the middle of a hurricane. Nevertheless people still try to turn intangible, abundant goods into discreet, exclusive property. A critical thinker would look at the issue and realize that selling published copies is a really bad business plan and that the real exclusive value is in the process of creating the works in the first place. Thus publishers have built an industry around a model that was never truly viable to begin with and they're probably freaking out because they see themselves becoming less relevant as time goes on. Neither law nor technology can change the nature of information as copyright and DRM repeatedly fails to change it. The moment you make information impossible to copy, it becomes unusable. Then, it's worthless.
It's truly amazing how crazy people get when it comes to their perceptions of profit and property. The two being sacrosanct, they'll lie, cheat, and abuse everyone to maintain their delusions.
"...respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I think, just on this basis, the copyright act is in violation of the constitution (No Anonymous Shills, Article 1 Section 8 doesn't make it universally legal, it only grants the power so long as it promotes the progress and the complete bankruptcy of the public domain clearly demonstrates its failure to promote the progress). The courts have ruled "No law, means no law." So I don't see how a law that is censorship of speech at its very core is even allowable given the first amendment and court cases upholding that standard. But I guess we Americans are just fine and dandy with the idea of giving up civil liberties when it comes to our addiction to money and ownership.
How do I know it's censorship of speech? Any time you express an idea, it's speech. Art of every kind expresses ideas. If you don't believe me, go out and find an image, audio, video, game, or text and try to tell me that it didn't put any ideas in your head. There's no media out there that doesn't disseminate information to the viewer and that means that it is speech by definition. And by supporting copyright of any kind, you support the idea that some people can have the right to say things that others cannot. This is no different than prohibiting people from being allowed to speak dissent against their government.
Going against copyright triggers the most base emotional reaction because copyright has been so fundamentally tied to the concept of property, even those that have no personal stake in copyright will defend it to their last, because they don't want their perception of property rights shattered. So much so, that speaking against copyright is a personal insult to anyone that has an attachment to their concept of property. It's the same reaction you get when an atheist denies the existence of gods. It's a deep personal and emotional issue. If you broach that topic, be prepared for an emotionally charged and irrational assault from those that have so strongly internalized the concept.
So, I have to ask. Do we really want to abridge our freedom of speech so that corporations can say things that we are prohibited from? Do we want them to have speech that we don't? They don't deserve it. Speech should be free and open to everyone. It's our natural right to communicate with others in any way we choose and corporate profits should never be at the center of discussion when justifying the violation of that right is brought up. Freedom of speech is only to be limited in the sense that exercising it doesn't infringe on the civil rights of others. I have to say that copyright is fundamentally wrong and it's a violation of my, yours, and every other American's natural rights to allow it to exist.
I would think it's apparent. The nature of culture is that it belongs to all of us. It's a resource that we share equally because it's use does not deny others from using it, unless you start imposing property rights to it. That is the natural state of culture. Artificial legal constructs aside, culture would proliferate unhindered. Expressions would feed on each other, birthing new expressions. As it stands today, every expression is placed in an artificial box that assigns ownership to the originator, even though that originator utilized the common wealth of existing culture to make it.
Value and price are not the same. That's equivocating. He may value the works, but that doesn't imply that it has a price beyond $0. There are many things we value that we never pay for, a sunny day, good friends, family, fresh air, and so on.
I can offer my perspective on why I infringe copyright. First off, it isn't property at all. It's the common wealth of all peoples. Culture belongs to each and all of us, nobody has any right to subvert that natural condition. Secondly, copyright is completely incapable of enforcing culture as property. No law and no technology has the capability to make that which is easily copied, hard to copy. Our computers couldn't function without the ability to copy. And I don't mean just the hard drive. I mean the RAM, CPU cache, GPU VRAM, audio hardware, and so on. Every component of a PC must be able to copy in order to process data and produce human readable output. Third, although the content may be abundant (the next thing down from infinite), thus gutting the exclusivity and rivalry of scarcity, the labor and time each artist puts in is very scarce. If they can't get paid for the hours they put in on their art, they have to give it up for another occupation. So, since labor and time are scarce, that's what they need to sell in order to get paid. In other words, they should be treating their artistic efforts as a service. There are many ways to monetize this, things such as Kickstarter or Indiegogo.
What is art? Art is the communication of ideas from one person to another through expression in tangible and intangible forms. In other words, all art is speech. Now, think about that. If art is speech and copyright gives the power to a select few to control access to speech, what do we have? In a word, censorship. It's an insidious subversion of free speech by triggering the American attachment to property concepts.
With so many flaws in copyright, its violation of the natural state of culture, and its censorship of free speech, it remains that obeying such a law and business model are irrational and harmful to us as a culture.
Just for the hell of it, I'll respond to your question from out of the blue (no pun intended).
How do they provide a streaming service that doesn't quickly become a really cheap downloading service? Well, the first thing they need to do is figure out what business they are really in. Here's a hint: They aren't in the content business. They're actually providing a service of convenience. They offer to the customer the ability to stream content to their home without the need to fill their hard drive with movies and TV shows that would require an entire server farm to manage. Netflix is selling people bandwidth. Nobody is going to bother with Netflix as a download service when they can much more effectively get the video file they desire by using P2P networks. Netflix doesn't need DRM, they are trying to put up a gate when there isn't even a fence to support it. The whole world can just walk around the gate (i.e. bitorrent).
The purpose the DRM serves is to placate the copyright holders and their corporate shareholders. It gives the false sense that Netflix is preventing people from getting free content because the copyright holders can't stand the idea that someone might get access to content that doesn't put money in their pockets. Content without DRM is viewed as a huge risk and if corporations are anything, they are risk adverse. DRM is a false sense of security.
No, that wasn't the question. The question was, "what's the problem?" and I explained why. You never asked how to provide a steaming service that doesn't get exploited by its customers.
'I don't particularly see a problem with this - and it could actually be a path to more content being available on the interweb. If it's done right, what's the problem? Netflix and iTunes both use it and work fine for watching movies.
To say that everything should use open tech and that you should be able to right click on any streaming content and "save as..." isn't really realistic imo.'
This is an exact quotation of the comment I replied to. I don't see a question of "how?", do you?
Yeah, once I got my internet connection back, I re-entered my log-in. That fixed it. I also discovered that if you don't close Steam before you shut down, it can corrupt your .blob file, which is what happened to me. Moral of the story: Steam is just as horrible as any other DRM system and completely unnecessary.
Re: Re: Re: There you go
And you're a child. Calling someone gay? Really? How old are you that you'd think accusing someone of being a homosexual was a mature way to respond? Calling someone gay isn't even an insult. Either you are and you accept it or you're not and you're secure in your sexuality. Calling someone gay to insult them is like calling someone blonde.
Re: Re: Re: Too bad for Him
He may have tripped Godwin's law, but it's an apt usage.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, aluminum does absorb radio waves.
Re: Re:
That's just not the case. At distances greater than 3 feet, the sun emits more radiation than your phone. We're talking about a few milliwatts of radiation. Mobile phones are not strong enough to interfere with electronics at a distance. A mobile phone outside of the cockpit will not be strong enough to disrupt electronics.
Besides, the entire issue can be resolved by insulating the cockpit walls with a Faraday cage. As long as the door is shut, no emissions from the passengers will get to the instruments. The whole "turn off your devices" spiel is nothing but an ineffectual overreaction.
Re: Dotcom stole millions.
You want to talk about stealing? How about the fact that the content corporations have repeatedly stolen our culture from us all? How about the fact that they've stolen our freedom of speech and expression so they can have monopoly control over speech? No OOTB, the "content creators" are the real thieves and criminals.
Re: Re: Re: Re: re-read the report
Actually, the Earth would go rogue and leave orbit. The atmosphere and oceans would dissipate without gravity. Holding on to something will only delay the exposure to vacuum, not prevent it. To survive, we would need underground habitats sealed off from the vacuum.
Re: Lawyers aren't bad enough; now Mike embraces convicts.
More diatribe from OOTB and nothing of real substance to say.
Re: NOT "a valuable contribution to the field" -- IT'S A SURVEY.
"The biggest pirates are STILL just freeloading at a fraction of the sum honest people would pay for as much content."
And you think that matters in absolute terms? Does it cost the industry anything for them to have that content for free? Would those people actually be able to afford all the content they consume? No, it doesn't and they can't. But in absolute terms, they spend more money than your so-called "honest" people. The cost of letting people have that content is $0 because people that use p2p invest their own bandwidth and energy. It's free distribution for the publisher, even if it goes against their wishes, which are not sacrosanct by the way. So by comparison, $300 profit from an infringer is still $300 profit compared to $100 profit a non-infringer, which is still only $100 profit. With the cost per sale being the same, the infringer is sill generating more profit for the industry than the "honest" people.
So get off your high horse and leave your delusional concepts of morality and property rights behind.
Re:
Exactly! Give me a service where I can stream every newly released movie, every TV show at airing, and I will pay for it. We want universal, unlimited access to all content that is on-demand and in high quality. That's something I'd pay for.
Re:
Equivocation fallacy. Shoplifting and infringement are not the same.
The data bears out the facts. People who infringe spend more than people who don't and this isn't the first study that found this trend. The logical conclusion is that people that infringe more have a wider exposure to content and are more likely to find things they want to spend money on. Simply put, content is advertising. If content is advertising, I'd wager that the content industry would want to put as much content into the hands of their customers as they possibly can.
The problem is property.
This whole storm of excrement stems from a distorted sense of property. The idea has been drilled into the head of just about every person today that, if you make something, you own it. However, this rationale forgets or disregards the fact that these works were built from the common wealth of human culture. That's something that belongs to no single person exclusively and to apply property concepts to works derived from such resources is an outright theft against every living person on Earth. Copyright is the legalized theft of human culture for the exclusive benefit of a select few.
The whole idea that we have specifically defined "authorized" uses (i.e. fair use) as opposed to absolute liberty in their use is nothing short of a cognitive distortion. I don't have to pay someone for the air that I breath, it belongs to anyone that wishes to use it. Yet, every living thing (including humans) contribute to the continued manufacturing of breathable atmosphere. Unfortunately, people still cling to this idea that they should have property rights over something that belongs to everyone equally and be allowed to extract payment for its existence. It should be free to access and use in new works at the moment of publishing.
Anyone with a capacity for rational critical thought should be able to see that the moment something is published, any hope of restricting the distribution of copies goes right out of the window. Anybody that tries to control works after publishing is a fool or insane. You'd have about as much luck controlling a published work as you would trying to recollect the feathers from a pillow torn open in the middle of a hurricane. Nevertheless people still try to turn intangible, abundant goods into discreet, exclusive property. A critical thinker would look at the issue and realize that selling published copies is a really bad business plan and that the real exclusive value is in the process of creating the works in the first place. Thus publishers have built an industry around a model that was never truly viable to begin with and they're probably freaking out because they see themselves becoming less relevant as time goes on. Neither law nor technology can change the nature of information as copyright and DRM repeatedly fails to change it. The moment you make information impossible to copy, it becomes unusable. Then, it's worthless.
Re: Re:
It's truly amazing how crazy people get when it comes to their perceptions of profit and property. The two being sacrosanct, they'll lie, cheat, and abuse everyone to maintain their delusions.
Re: Re: Re:
So they want freedom to shoot people at will and not suffer any consequences for any wrong-doing? That sounds like their modus operandi.
Congress shall make no law...
"...respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I think, just on this basis, the copyright act is in violation of the constitution (No Anonymous Shills, Article 1 Section 8 doesn't make it universally legal, it only grants the power so long as it promotes the progress and the complete bankruptcy of the public domain clearly demonstrates its failure to promote the progress). The courts have ruled "No law, means no law." So I don't see how a law that is censorship of speech at its very core is even allowable given the first amendment and court cases upholding that standard. But I guess we Americans are just fine and dandy with the idea of giving up civil liberties when it comes to our addiction to money and ownership.
How do I know it's censorship of speech? Any time you express an idea, it's speech. Art of every kind expresses ideas. If you don't believe me, go out and find an image, audio, video, game, or text and try to tell me that it didn't put any ideas in your head. There's no media out there that doesn't disseminate information to the viewer and that means that it is speech by definition. And by supporting copyright of any kind, you support the idea that some people can have the right to say things that others cannot. This is no different than prohibiting people from being allowed to speak dissent against their government.
Going against copyright triggers the most base emotional reaction because copyright has been so fundamentally tied to the concept of property, even those that have no personal stake in copyright will defend it to their last, because they don't want their perception of property rights shattered. So much so, that speaking against copyright is a personal insult to anyone that has an attachment to their concept of property. It's the same reaction you get when an atheist denies the existence of gods. It's a deep personal and emotional issue. If you broach that topic, be prepared for an emotionally charged and irrational assault from those that have so strongly internalized the concept.
So, I have to ask. Do we really want to abridge our freedom of speech so that corporations can say things that we are prohibited from? Do we want them to have speech that we don't? They don't deserve it. Speech should be free and open to everyone. It's our natural right to communicate with others in any way we choose and corporate profits should never be at the center of discussion when justifying the violation of that right is brought up. Freedom of speech is only to be limited in the sense that exercising it doesn't infringe on the civil rights of others. I have to say that copyright is fundamentally wrong and it's a violation of my, yours, and every other American's natural rights to allow it to exist.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
I would think it's apparent. The nature of culture is that it belongs to all of us. It's a resource that we share equally because it's use does not deny others from using it, unless you start imposing property rights to it. That is the natural state of culture. Artificial legal constructs aside, culture would proliferate unhindered. Expressions would feed on each other, birthing new expressions. As it stands today, every expression is placed in an artificial box that assigns ownership to the originator, even though that originator utilized the common wealth of existing culture to make it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
Value and price are not the same. That's equivocating. He may value the works, but that doesn't imply that it has a price beyond $0. There are many things we value that we never pay for, a sunny day, good friends, family, fresh air, and so on.
I can offer my perspective on why I infringe copyright. First off, it isn't property at all. It's the common wealth of all peoples. Culture belongs to each and all of us, nobody has any right to subvert that natural condition. Secondly, copyright is completely incapable of enforcing culture as property. No law and no technology has the capability to make that which is easily copied, hard to copy. Our computers couldn't function without the ability to copy. And I don't mean just the hard drive. I mean the RAM, CPU cache, GPU VRAM, audio hardware, and so on. Every component of a PC must be able to copy in order to process data and produce human readable output. Third, although the content may be abundant (the next thing down from infinite), thus gutting the exclusivity and rivalry of scarcity, the labor and time each artist puts in is very scarce. If they can't get paid for the hours they put in on their art, they have to give it up for another occupation. So, since labor and time are scarce, that's what they need to sell in order to get paid. In other words, they should be treating their artistic efforts as a service. There are many ways to monetize this, things such as Kickstarter or Indiegogo.
What is art? Art is the communication of ideas from one person to another through expression in tangible and intangible forms. In other words, all art is speech. Now, think about that. If art is speech and copyright gives the power to a select few to control access to speech, what do we have? In a word, censorship. It's an insidious subversion of free speech by triggering the American attachment to property concepts.
With so many flaws in copyright, its violation of the natural state of culture, and its censorship of free speech, it remains that obeying such a law and business model are irrational and harmful to us as a culture.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
It can happen and it did happen to me. Here's the dialog that you get:
http://i.imgur.com/WZYpy.png
This means, no internet and no log-in info = no offline mode. You can't access the Steam software, your games, anything.
Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
Just for the hell of it, I'll respond to your question from out of the blue (no pun intended).
How do they provide a streaming service that doesn't quickly become a really cheap downloading service? Well, the first thing they need to do is figure out what business they are really in. Here's a hint: They aren't in the content business. They're actually providing a service of convenience. They offer to the customer the ability to stream content to their home without the need to fill their hard drive with movies and TV shows that would require an entire server farm to manage. Netflix is selling people bandwidth. Nobody is going to bother with Netflix as a download service when they can much more effectively get the video file they desire by using P2P networks. Netflix doesn't need DRM, they are trying to put up a gate when there isn't even a fence to support it. The whole world can just walk around the gate (i.e. bitorrent).
The purpose the DRM serves is to placate the copyright holders and their corporate shareholders. It gives the false sense that Netflix is preventing people from getting free content because the copyright holders can't stand the idea that someone might get access to content that doesn't put money in their pockets. Content without DRM is viewed as a huge risk and if corporations are anything, they are risk adverse. DRM is a false sense of security.
Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
No, that wasn't the question. The question was, "what's the problem?" and I explained why. You never asked how to provide a steaming service that doesn't get exploited by its customers.
'I don't particularly see a problem with this - and it could actually be a path to more content being available on the interweb. If it's done right, what's the problem? Netflix and iTunes both use it and work fine for watching movies.
To say that everything should use open tech and that you should be able to right click on any streaming content and "save as..." isn't really realistic imo.'
This is an exact quotation of the comment I replied to. I don't see a question of "how?", do you?
Re: Re: Re: Re: I know it's not a popular view here, but...
Yeah, once I got my internet connection back, I re-entered my log-in. That fixed it. I also discovered that if you don't close Steam before you shut down, it can corrupt your .blob file, which is what happened to me. Moral of the story: Steam is just as horrible as any other DRM system and completely unnecessary.