So what? The progress of technology will go on if one is unable to hire 3000 engineers instantaneously. The world will not end if we slow shit down just a tiny, tiny bit to make sure people aren't killing themselves.
They're not even saying you can torrent it. They're implying it, but not saying it. It's like getting around a gag order by saying, for example, "I'm not allowed to talk about my settlement with Acme Inc., so on a completely unrelated note, once upon a time there was a big corporation called Shmacme Shmincorporated, and (etc.)"
You're buying the experience of going to the movies. Or the ability to have the convenience of a DVD. Or the convenience of being able to listen to a song on your iPod. And, in many cases, it's not just one thing, but a bundle of things: the convenience of being able to hear a song in any CD player, combined with a nice set of liner notes and the opportunity to hear a set of songs the way a band wants you to hear.
The problem is, piracy can handily compete with three out of four of these. Convenience of access is a losing battle, because pirates will always be able to make their services more convenient. They don't even need to be more convenient than the creator's option, they just have to be as convenient and free. (Also, theoretically you could have a movie theater which torrents everything that they screen and doesn't share revenue with the creators, but that's a bit of a stretch.)
So, convenience is a problematic way to look at it. But the experience of going to the movies is where you hit the nail on the head. Maybe not the experience in its current form, which is — hypothetically — just another fragile convenience service. A truly resilient model is one which only the original artist can possibly provide, which is an experience.
This is easy for performing artists; they don't have to change what they're doing. The challenge is for traditionally absentee entertainers — filmmakers, authors, visual artists, etc. — to come up with ways to turn their works into performances, which they and only they can execute.
So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right.
What about the students' mental health? The rate at which students learn, as measured by test scores, grades, etc. is hardly the whole picture. If a student gets through school with straight A's and anxiety issues, that's hardly prepared them for the real world.
I struggled in large class sizes throughout middle and high school, until finally transferring to a smaller school for my junior and senior years. Instantly, the more intimate environment helped me succeed, because the teachers and staff actually had the time and resources to give a crap about me.
It's just a shame that such things are only considered when they start affecting a student's grades. Just because somebody's testing well doesn't mean they're doing okay.
My beef isn't with Apple copying Android; it's with the press ejaculating all over the place about it (in both senses of the word) as if it were the most magical and revolutionary and magical and paradigm-shifting and magical new development in the world.
Every inconsequential thing Apple ever announces is an earth-shattering, cancer-curing event to an enormous swath of the tech press. It's getting really, really tiring.
Mobile phones output non-ionizing radiation. This is the type of radiation which has been found, time and time again, to not cause DNA damage, and therefore not cancer.
So, why is it that we're hearing that cell phones may have been found to be carcinogenic, but not about the fundamental new development in particle physics that non-ionizing radiation behaves differently than we thought? That's kind of a big deal.
If cell phones cause cancer, that would imply that perhaps a particularly intense shade of blue might also cause cancer. However, no such theories are being discussed in light of this news.
The problem is that free culture and copylefting is (from the experience of anyone currently alive, history notwithstanding) such a radically new and weird concept. New ideas often take decades before the majority of people can wrap their heads around them.
Part of why we're in the mess we're in today is because many people still don't understand, for example, the Internet.
As an uninformed US citizen with only passing familiarity of how the BBC operates, I have to ask: what motive does the BBC have to limit file sharing of Doctor Who? Aren't they a public broadcaster, funded by TV licensing fees, and they don't have to assure advertisers that people are watching the broadcast? Isn't it in their best interest for as many people to watch Doctor Who as possible?
Re: Re: Butt Jobs Admited To Some Problems
So what? The progress of technology will go on if one is unable to hire 3000 engineers instantaneously. The world will not end if we slow shit down just a tiny, tiny bit to make sure people aren't killing themselves.
(untitled comment)
Cars are useful but potentially harmful machines which we license people to operate in public. Perhaps the same with drones?
Although with their potential to be operated anonymously, and the size of the micro-drones, I wonder if that's even doable.
Re: Re:
They're not even saying you can torrent it. They're implying it, but not saying it. It's like getting around a gag order by saying, for example, "I'm not allowed to talk about my settlement with Acme Inc., so on a completely unrelated note, once upon a time there was a big corporation called Shmacme Shmincorporated, and (etc.)"
They can lawyer their way out of that easily.
Re:
Would you mind citing an example of the mob demanding citations and dismissing a perfectly reasonable one?
(untitled comment)
The problem is, piracy can handily compete with three out of four of these. Convenience of access is a losing battle, because pirates will always be able to make their services more convenient. They don't even need to be more convenient than the creator's option, they just have to be as convenient and free. (Also, theoretically you could have a movie theater which torrents everything that they screen and doesn't share revenue with the creators, but that's a bit of a stretch.)
So, convenience is a problematic way to look at it. But the experience of going to the movies is where you hit the nail on the head. Maybe not the experience in its current form, which is — hypothetically — just another fragile convenience service. A truly resilient model is one which only the original artist can possibly provide, which is an experience.
This is easy for performing artists; they don't have to change what they're doing. The challenge is for traditionally absentee entertainers — filmmakers, authors, visual artists, etc. — to come up with ways to turn their works into performances, which they and only they can execute.
(untitled comment)
Okay, so let's try this again, but instead not specifically requesting they do anything about it, just to comment on it.
Maybe that's better.
Re: Re:
Some people are dyslexic.
Re: Re:
We don't want to be friends with Congress. We want them to stop fucking shit up.
(untitled comment)
Clearly, they're looking for another petition.
I did my best to be as comprehensive as possible within the 800 character limit. Let's see if we can't get this to do something.
(untitled comment)
Kopimism should join forces with Pastafarianism. All hail the copypasta.
Re: Re: Re:
So, talking to other human beings makes you a jackbooted thug?
(untitled comment)
Regarding the Salon article about class size:
What about the students' mental health? The rate at which students learn, as measured by test scores, grades, etc. is hardly the whole picture. If a student gets through school with straight A's and anxiety issues, that's hardly prepared them for the real world.
I struggled in large class sizes throughout middle and high school, until finally transferring to a smaller school for my junior and senior years. Instantly, the more intimate environment helped me succeed, because the teachers and staff actually had the time and resources to give a crap about me.
It's just a shame that such things are only considered when they start affecting a student's grades. Just because somebody's testing well doesn't mean they're doing okay.
(untitled comment)
I'm not outraged right this moment, but given Facebook's track record, I'm concerned that they'll start abusing this technology.
That's why I'm uploading and tagging myself in only photos in which I'm wearing a full-body animal costume. Just to fuck with the algorithm.
(untitled comment)
My beef isn't with Apple copying Android; it's with the press ejaculating all over the place about it (in both senses of the word) as if it were the most magical and revolutionary and magical and paradigm-shifting and magical new development in the world.
Every inconsequential thing Apple ever announces is an earth-shattering, cancer-curing event to an enormous swath of the tech press. It's getting really, really tiring.
(untitled comment)
Oh for chrissakes.
Mobile phones output non-ionizing radiation. This is the type of radiation which has been found, time and time again, to not cause DNA damage, and therefore not cancer.
So, why is it that we're hearing that cell phones may have been found to be carcinogenic, but not about the fundamental new development in particle physics that non-ionizing radiation behaves differently than we thought? That's kind of a big deal.
If cell phones cause cancer, that would imply that perhaps a particularly intense shade of blue might also cause cancer. However, no such theories are being discussed in light of this news.
(untitled comment)
She should wear a dress made of MP3s at her next concert.
Re: Re:
Except Myriad is an Adobe font. Apple has no legal authority over it whatsoever.
(untitled comment)
The problem is that free culture and copylefting is (from the experience of anyone currently alive, history notwithstanding) such a radically new and weird concept. New ideas often take decades before the majority of people can wrap their heads around them.
Part of why we're in the mess we're in today is because many people still don't understand, for example, the Internet.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yo dawg, I herd you like trolling, so I put some trolling in yo trolling so you can troll while you troll.
(untitled comment)
As an uninformed US citizen with only passing familiarity of how the BBC operates, I have to ask: what motive does the BBC have to limit file sharing of Doctor Who? Aren't they a public broadcaster, funded by TV licensing fees, and they don't have to assure advertisers that people are watching the broadcast? Isn't it in their best interest for as many people to watch Doctor Who as possible?
What am I missing here?