Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

183 comments

Copyright Rocks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734184)

He finally realized what a dirty, thieving bastard he was trying to get everybody to be. It's about god damned time one of them relented. Artists and others who work hard for a living and create things that enhance your lives every single day deserve to make a living. You are not entitled to the sweat of their brows or all the time out of their lives that it takes to actually learn how to play an instrument, become a good actor, etc. Sorry to break the news to you.

Re:Copyright Rocks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734224)

Damn straight.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734242)

I'd like to say:

He finally realized what a dirty, thieving bastard he was trying to get everybody to be. It's about god damned time one of them relented. Artists and others who work hard for a living and create things that enhance your lives every single day deserve to make a living. You are not entitled to the sweat of their brows or all the time out of their lives that it takes to actually learn how to play an instrument, become a good actor, etc. Sorry to break the news to you.

Now everyone that reads that has to pay me 2$ for the next 99 years, and isn't entitled to distribute it without having their lives torn apart by lawyers.

Re:Copyright Rocks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734308)

HAHAHA DlSREGARD THAT, l SUCK COCKS

Re:Copyright Rocks (5, Interesting)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734256)

You know what would rock even more? If we could have both music and movies and and all the other art that we can spread across the world to everyone with a computer virtually for free as well as having the poor artists not starving.

An it would totally rock if everyone had access to all digitalized culture legally, so one wouldn't have to feel bad or fear a one in a million chance of personal economic disaster.

And we can. All it takes is a little socialism. Let the people decide what they like by downloading stuff and give those artists a living wage paid for with taxes.

(Another solution, even easier to administer, would be basic income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee [wikipedia.org] )

Anyway... Socialism FTW and fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Peace.

Re:Copyright Rocks (2, Funny)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734318)

Yeah, wouldn't it be great if we can just have everything for free and have the government provide everything? That's genius. And since money magically appears out of nowhere, it's foolproof. Now all we have to do is force people to work and we're golden.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734336)

you mean like how people aren't forced to now?

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734496)

you mean like how people aren't forced to now?

You're not forced to work. Homelessness is always an option. You can get your meals from a soup kitchen, camp out in Walmart's parking lot and beg people who shop there for cash until the police tell you to leave, etc.

There's no guarantee you'll like that option, but you don't seem to like the option of working, either, so I guess it's worth a shot, huh?

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34735218)

Or he always has the option to take rob you and take money from you - but then of course the government provided services like police protection, court system, and prison system might make his life more difficult. Damn government providing everything for people.

Re:Copyright Rocks (2)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734362)

Are you replying to the part about basic income? Are you stupid or something? Do you think all people would settle for whatever little the basic income would give them? Most people would want to work to get paid so they can get fancier food, a bigger house and more stuff.

Re:Copyright Rocks (2)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734480)

Well, given that we have multi-generational welfare families, yes. I think many would. The question is what you do about those people. Do you let them starve, or do you feed them knowing that you were never going to get them to work anyway. Of course, if you guarantee them a livable wage without work, the number of people that live on the dole will be greater than if you let them starve.

I find the response I almost always get from my suggestion on how we should deal with food stamps interesting. I suggest we make a K-ration type food. Make it taste horrible, yet be healthy. I mean taste REALLY bad. Then just give it away. Don't bother tracking it at all. Get rid of all the bureaucracy involved in the food stamp program. Literally pull semi-trucks into parking lots and let people take what they want. If it tastes bad enough, most people will work before eating it, but they will eat it before they starve to death. The people that eat it even though they could work for food are the ones you were never going to get off the dole anyways. There would be no black market for it because anyone that wanted it could just go get it for free. This guarantees no one starves, reduces bureaucracy, and makes fraud totally uneconomical without any punitive threats. Win, Win, Win.

The interesting part is that most peoples response to this is to suggest that this would violate some kind of human right. They usually come around when it is pointed out that feeding someone food that tastes bad is not abuse. We do it to children all the time. It is interesting though that their first thought is that it is abusive.

Re:Copyright Rocks (2)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734554)

Well, given that we have multi-generational welfare families, yes.

That's because welfare, by the time you get all the free prescriptions, transportation, eyeglasses, etc.etc that's all covered, pays over 200% what a minimum wage job does. When you're not qualified to do anything, then welfare gives you a ridiculously high wage.

Hence, the problem you mention.

Re:Copyright Rocks (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736238)

In other word, minimum wage is way too low.

Re:Copyright Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34736568)

It's a well-known political problem known as the welfare trap [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736824)

And the solution is quite easy: Disallow paying people less than what's required to survive.

Welfare's primary and often only function is to give people a way to sustain themselves. This is (or should be) barely more than what is required to survive. If now companies are allowed to lower salaries to the point where they offer not more than what welfare already does, it is only logic for people to stay on welfare instead of taking the job, especially if the salary is the ONLY incentive to take that job (e.g. if there is little to no chance to climb the company ladder or if there are no fringe benefits, which is usual in those low pay jobs).

Let's be honest here, isn't it DUMB to take a job that "costs" you 8 hours of your life per day when you do not get anything extra out of it? Especially if it is not a job that by itself gives you any sense of accomplishment.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734566)

I suggest we make a K-ration type food. Make it taste horrible, yet be healthy. I mean taste REALLY bad. Then just give it away.

To make that work you would have to outlaw chilli sauce.

Re:Copyright Rocks (2)

LordOfTheCows (1677250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734750)

I foresee a couple of problems with this. What's to prevent me from raising pigs using this untasty free food of yours? Or maybe transform it into semi-tasty food for resale? Perhaps sell it in another country? Free raw materials would certainly be abused :)

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734798)

While pigs may be a problem. Turning it tasty would likely be more trouble than it's worth, and selling to another country would cost you more than you could get for it.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735084)

They usually come around when it is pointed out that feeding someone food that tastes bad is not abuse. We do it to children all the time.

I've always thought it was abusive to make children eat food that they did not like.

Re:Copyright Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34736208)

"I've always thought it was abusive to make children eat food that they did not like."

Only Grizzly-Mamas think that,

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

ikkonoishi (674762) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735172)

Anything that tastes bad enough that you can't get used to it or cover it with ketchup or something will make it so that you can't keep the food down.

Re:Copyright Rocks (4, Insightful)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735326)

I don't see how multi-generational welfare families are any morally worse than multi-generational wealthy families, yet tons more complain about the former than they do about the latter. Idle is idle. Both are a net drain on society, but in different ways.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736126)

The former is worse because they get paid with money taken from their fellow citizens at gunpoint. The majority of wealthy families are not out robbing people to keep their coffers full. In fact the majority of them are small/medium business owners whose families worked quite hard for that money. The Rockerfellers and Kennedys are the exception not the rule when it comes to family wealth, and for the most part the wealthy families give plenty back to society rather than just sitting around sucking on their crackpipe collecting their welfare check.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736130)

I don't see how multi-generational welfare families are any morally worse than multi-generational wealthy families, yet tons more complain about the former than they do about the latter. Idle is idle. Both are a net drain on society, but in different ways.

The former pay taxes, the latter don't. I don't know what kind of arithmetic or economics you are using, but how are wealthy families a "net drain"?

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

ChienAndalu (1293930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736138)

edit: The other way around of course

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736164)

You'd soon get people that would take the entire truckload, then sell it as fertilizer or something like that. Whenever you give away something for free you need some sort of a mechanism to stop a single person from taking it all. How about a 'ration-cafeteria'? You can take as much as you want, you just have to eat it right there and then.

Re:Copyright Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34736530)

I'm not saying that your idea is necessarily bad, but have you ever considered that there are people out there who genuinely are looking for work and who really cannot find any? And not because they're lazy, or because they just pretend to be looking.

As for the suggestion that it would be abusive, or otherwise ethically objectionable, I think given that you suggest making the food taste "horrible" and "REALLY bad" on purpose, I think you really shouldn't be surprised.

Re:Copyright Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734858)

Umm. You've never lived in a welfare-heavy culture, have you? Lots of people (not all) choose it and "settle."

Re:Copyright Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734366)

Yeah, wouldn't it be great if we can just have everything for free and have the government provide everything? That's genius. And since money magically appears out of nowhere, it's foolproof. Now all we have to do is force people to work and we're golden.

Now this could be a good thread - the "unlimited filesharing of other people's work as a basic human right" crowd vs. the Tea Party crowd.

(Makes popcorn)

Re:Copyright Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734410)

Where I live we have a system that provides even less work incentive than BIG and the unemployment rates are pretty similar to those in the US, although the unemployed here do live in more humane conditions. But people on the whole don't want to be unemployed because government money may keep you fed but it doesn't buy you a shiny new game console. Also, most people have an inherent urge to feel useful. I'm not saying this is because they're good people, but it's just the case that we're wired that way, it's probably some ancient tribal instinct.
Quite apart from the economic feasibility (which is just fine) there is also the question that I for one don't want to live in a society in which there are people who have to beg for money and/or starve. A civilised society simply doesn't tolerate such squalor. I don't care if some unemployed people don't want to work (as long as they're not too plentiful) and in any case I think a good society would give unemployed a stipend and help to get back on life's tracks.
As for the music payment scheme, I don't know if I agree with GP. Not all people like music... should those people be forced to help fund musicians through taxation? On the other hand maybe cultural development is for the public good to a sufficient extent... I'm on the fence.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734522)

As for the music payment scheme, I don't know if I agree with GP. Not all people like music... should those people be forced to help fund musicians through taxation? On the other hand maybe cultural development is for the public good to a sufficient extent... I'm on the fence.

If they don't like any kind of digitizable culture, they can sulk and murmur along with everyone who doesn't like roads or hospitals or public schools or whatever else taxes gets us, in my opinion. :)

The anointed artists would represent the mainstream of culture and how many of those do we need? One per a thousand consumers? The art tax would be vanishingly small.

And we'd be rid of the leeching middle men, the industry executives, of course.

Others, who have enough of a passion would keep rocking and having to get a job until/if they hit it big time, just like they do today.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736192)

Not all people like music... should those people be forced to help fund musicians through taxation?

They're not getting out of it today. Even if you disregard the direct levies they're subjected to on recordable media and similar in many countries, IP rights are still equivalent to other widely spread taxation points on the economy.

Even if you avoid paying it in the first degree, you'll pay for it in a general higher cost of living; you'll pay the slightly higher price for a haircut as the hair saloon pays a fee for playing music, etc. And going beyond that, you'll get it baked into cable fees, as generalized cost of living wage demands, etc. The funding is simply extracted at so many points that you can't avoid getting impacted by it.

If we avoid the waste of the current system, a more direct and efficient funding of musicians would burden the economy to less than 10% of what it's costing us today, while directing more money to the creators than they're getting out of the middlemen today. The supposed objectors would find themselves paying less, directly and indirectly than they are today.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736354)

Where I live we have a system that provides even less work incentive than BIG and the unemployment rates are pretty similar to those in the US, although the unemployed here do live in more humane conditions. But people on the whole don't want to be unemployed because government money may keep you fed but it doesn't buy you a shiny new game console. Also, most people have an inherent urge to feel useful. I'm not saying this is because they're good people, but it's just the case that we're wired that way, it's probably some ancient tribal instinct. Quite apart from the economic feasibility (which is just fine) there is also the question that I for one don't want to live in a society in which there are people who have to beg for money and/or starve. A civilised society simply doesn't tolerate such squalor. I don't care if some unemployed people don't want to work (as long as they're not too plentiful) and in any case I think a good society would give unemployed a stipend and help to get back on life's tracks. As for the music payment scheme, I don't know if I agree with GP. Not all people like music... should those people be forced to help fund musicians through taxation? On the other hand maybe cultural development is for the public good to a sufficient extent... I'm on the fence.

I live in a country where the taxpayer does subsidize the "yarts" I also support the idea that it's a waste of money - if the government funded "yartists" were so fucking deserving they wouldn't need a taxpayer hand out.

Ah - spittle! The free screen cleaner! :-D

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

BlogTroller (1723086) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734492)

Isn't than an old American tradition frorm the colonial age? I mean slaves..

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734826)

Actually, the "tradition" isn't American since slavery pre-dates America. It probably predates written history.

Re:Copyright Rocks (2)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734982)

So did the English Language, Baseball, apple pie, and George Washington, but we still call those American.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736874)

Baseball does not predate America.

Peep Show quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734510)

Jeremy: "I should be able to have everything I like, all the time! Isn't that what Democracy is about?"

Re:Copyright Rocks (5, Interesting)

Troll-Under-D'Bridge (1782952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734738)

Since it's Sunday, and I have nothing better to do. Let me humor you with a long reply.

Yes, it would be great if we can have everything free. That's called the Star Trek economy [wikipedia.org] . Once we have production-grade replicators or nth-generation Repraps [reprap.org] , that will become a reality, indistinguishable from magic. Now, if all that we need to manufacture something is the work to haul some amorphous lump of matter and dump it into the replicator, then the value of money degrades to that of a household chores bribe: Hey, Junior, can you fetch me some dirt from the back yard. I promise, I'll drive you to the ballgame this Sunday.

That's it, as far as goods that we can hold in our hands are concerned. We're not yet at the Star Trek level as far as physical objects are concerned. Every single iPhone or Prius has to go through some form of manual intervention, a worker who has to assemble the bits and bolts. You can't just download the blueprint for a laptop and feed the binary data to any of today's state-of-the-art 3D printers. And even if you can, you still need special materials that you can't ask Junior to fetch from your back yard.

On the other hand, duplicating an eBook or an Mp3 is as easy as typing "cp *mp3 /media/My_Copy" or simply plugging in your iPod Touch and clicking the appropriate prompt button. As far as digital goods and objects are concerned, we are already at the Star Trek level. So the work needed to product a piece of music is limited to the very act of making the actual recording, not the reproduction. Once the master has been made, endless copies can be made.

So, I'm sure you'll ask, who'll pay for the initial step? Those hungry for novelty and innovation. If nobody wants to pay to hear a new version of the Goldberg Variations, then we're stuck to listening to the old recordings by, say, Glenn Gould, or until some bored amateur decides to record and foist on us her atonal version of Bach.

Don't underestimate boredom as a motive for innovation and progress. It's what made Wikipedia the dominant source of information in the Internet, millions of bored users deciding to contribute their little tidbits of information.

Yes, Wikipedia still needs money to operate its servers. But that is minuscule compared to the quantity of "free" editing and writing work contributed by bored users, trolls, and government agents. We don't pay for the pizza but for the pizza delivery.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735338)

Once we have production-grade replicators or nth-generation Repraps [reprap.org], that will become a reality, indistinguishable from magic.

We'll never get there. The powerful people whose wealth and power are wrapped up in our dominant "few producers / many consumers" wealth redistribution scheme will never allow it.

If we ever get close to the Star Trek replicator, I guarantee you that the IP, know-how and everything related will be suppressed and destroyed by the small ownership class who profit from scarcity.

Re:Copyright Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34735690)

>If we ever get close to the Star Trek replicator, I guarantee you that the IP, know-how and everything related will be suppressed and destroyed by the small ownership class who profit from scarcity.

Just like they managed to do today with Information replicators? They will try, but they will not succeed (unless the replicators require some rare natural resource to function)

Re:Copyright Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34736680)

There are other countries than United States. Remember that whenever you think that this will not work because of "Our Leaders".

Socialistic Iceland of 3200ad would probably switch to geothermally powered replicators without a hassle.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1, Interesting)

Draek (916851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735158)

As far as copyrighted works are concerned, history shows people are quite content with working for free on their own already.

Well, not *everyone*, but losing Lady GaGa and Justin Bieber ain't no big loss anyways, all the good music is indie in any case.

Re:Copyright Rocks (2)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735734)

Considering that middle management and bureaucracy continue to expand, pointless consumerism runs rampant, obsolete or oversized corporations get billions in subsidies and tax loopholes, and the largest sector of the US economy is now finance (surpassing all goods-producing industries combined), it's arguable that we've long passed the point where society required full employment to provide its needs, and we have now entered the phase of endlessly inventing new high-paid welfare jobs that do little other than keep unemployment low and the GDP high (on paper).

(holy run-on sentence, Batman!)

If there was a strong social safety net, it's true that many people would simply drop out and live off the state's dime. But it would mostly weed out the unmotivated, the burned out, and those ill-suited to their jobs—in other words, people who were barely contributing if not detrimental to their own companies. If companies could no longer frighten workers with the spectre of unemployment, employees would have much greater bargaining power without resorting to labor unions. It would also give many people the chance to spend some quality time in their garage on that crazy idea they think might change the world. Or the chance to go back to school and learn some useful things. Or the chance to spend some time with their kids. Eliminating retirement and unemployment benefits would go a long way towards removing highly paid but underperforming employees and positions**. All in all, the workforce would be smaller but much more active; agile, motivated, and organic, like capitalism is supposed to be.

I don't think we've yet reached the point where we could switch to such a system without pain and suffering, but the inexorable advance of technology brings a world of employment-by-choice closer to reality. Population growth is slowing worldwide thanks to increasing affluence. For once we find much of our industry—like cars, airplanes, computers, and appliances—becoming more efficient over time, not less. Our most industrialized countries already have more than enough resources and technology to meet the fundamental desires of their populace—subsistence, transportation, communication, and recreation. Since we already have proven the practicality of an industrial base large enough to satisfy the entire population, it becomes mostly an issue of optimization and labor reduction. Assuming we can adopt a better source of energy than fossil fuels, and assuming materialism hasn't been ordained the state religion by then, I doubt this century will end without reaching the point where we can offload enough of our menial work onto computers and machines that we don't mind doing the remainder. It might not be a Star Trek techno-utopia, but it would solve a lot of problems.

-

**(If an employee is particularly valuable, they should be paid more now, not promised pensions twenty, thirty, forty years down the line. If the employee is smart, they'll invest the money wisely. If they're not smart, at least the safety net means they won't be sleeping in the gutter. In either case, you won't see the triune problems of employees twiddling their thumbs until their pensions mature, companies unwilling to fire underperforming executives because they don't want to pay their golden parachutes, and the financial ruin of victims of Enron-type collapses.)

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736234)

No but the "base minimum income" idea has its merits.

First, it would provide a social security for everyone. I'm quite convinced it would reduce crime quite a bit (and I'm not alone in this), first because the fundamental need for petty crime ceases to exist (=getting money to buy food, or getting food altogether) and even the least in the population have something to lose (the very LAST thing you want is people who have literally nothing to lose).

Second, poor ("dumb") people are more likely to spend money than rich ("smart") ones. The latter are more likely to plan ahead and build a nestegg for retirement. And I think I needn't stress how people able and willing to spend money are a boon for an economy.

Third, that myth that people will cease to work at all and just lay around lazily is easily debunked. Would you sit on your ass for, say, 600 bucks a month? Or would you first of all want to work to feel less of a lazy bum and second want more than those petty 600 bucks so you can actually buy something nice? And those that would DO SO already, it's not like there's no way around it. Sure, you'd have to pay people more than 3 bucks on a "want fries with that" job. Boo-hoo, cry me a river, McD. I don't know about you, but I think people should be able to sustain themselves on money they earn from working.

On the other side, you'll save a lot of money because it will take a lot of bureaucracy out of the social security system and unemployment management. I don't know about your country, but here a good deal of our tax money gets blown on unemployment, every unemployed person costs MORE than twice the money he gets, due to bureaucracy. Not to mention that many get more than the basic amount of money, so even if you provide every person who could potentially be part of the workforce with a basic income, you'd most likely end up cheaper.

So the economy would benefit from it, social peace and stability increases and it costs most likely not more than the current system. Care to tell me the drawbacks?

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

murdocj (543661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736820)

Let me think... how about basing everything on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Re:Copyright Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734404)

I hate copyright. I would like to see it abolished. I occasionally pirate stuff. I don't think I am above the law, therefore I think it is wrong. I don't condone software piracy. I hope I'll plead guilty if I'm ever on trial (but I probably won't).

So you see. I completely support your envisioned future. I just don't think I'm supporting it by pirating. People like those in TFA are the ones making a difference (sadly... a very minor one).

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734442)

I don't think Pirating is the best way to go either. FOSS and creative commons is.

Pirating can help, in a way, though. When done by all the middle class kids, it should make politicians realize they're criminalizing an entire generation and that that isn't a good thing or that there isn't even anything they can do about it.

Re:Copyright Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734608)

When done by all the middle class kids, it should make politicians realize they're criminalizing an entire generation and that that isn't a good thing or that there isn't even anything they can do about it.

That never stopped the drug war (btw, drug 'crimes' are far more common than infringement). And if the drug war does stop, that won't be what stopped it. As someone in early history would have put it (probably), only through tongue or force of arms can the common man effect change.

Ignoring laws simply does not work. Protesting is hardly any better, not when the avenues he/she has available are tightly contained. Interrupting business? Go to jail. Downloading a song? Life ruined; owe $2M. Maybe if the states took the occasional contradictory stance... but they don't.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734648)

Good point about the drug wars. I'd like to point out that other places than the US may be better soil for sane legislation, though. (Not that I'm too optimistic about that.)

Re:Copyright Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734786)

Good point about the drug wars. I'd like to point out that other places than the US may be better soil for sane legislation, though. (Not that I'm too optimistic about that.)

I modded you up almost solely because you were willing to recognize a good point when it was made instead of acting like a petty bickering child and arguing for the sake of making a pissing contest. Maybe that isn't the intended use of an "Informative" mod in the strictest sense, but by your example you are in fact "informing" others of how to participate in civilized, enjoyable discussion. I think that's at least as important as a list of facts. Slashdot needs more of this. Thank you, sir or ma'am. This was a most refreshing thing to see and I wanted you to know it.

Re:Copyright Rocks (0)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734460)

Let the people decide what they like by downloading stuff and give those artists a living wage paid for with taxes.

Those of us living on planet earth realize that money is a way to validate what people choose to do with their time. Maybe someone decides what they want to do is bang trash cans together for eight hours a day to no particular end. Is that worth a 'living wage' (a horrible, horrible term that needs to be smashed to pieces, by the way) in your opinion?

I'll answer that for you: Yes, because the government should provide everything for everyone; if they want to work, that's cool, man, but if they don't, that's cool too.

Fucking hippie.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734570)

Maybe someone decides what they want to do is bang trash cans together for eight hours a day to no particular end. Is that worth a 'living wage' (a horrible, horrible term that needs to be smashed to pieces, by the way) in your opinion?

If that is what the people want, the people will download it and based on those numbers, money could be sent their way. If people don't want to download the banging of trashcans together for eight hour a day, they won't and that particular art wouldn't be paid for by taxes.

Of course, with the basic income for everyone, one wouldn't even need to bother banging trashcans together if one wouldn't want to, but that was another point. It would solve the piracy and starving artist problem too, but if you don't want to go all that far in decency, then have a look at the first suggestion again.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734890)

If that is what the people want, the people will download it and based on those numbers, money could be sent their way.

Since the downloader invests nothing bar his ISP, it would be easy for an artist ('n'friends) to artificially boost the download numbers.

(Not criticising the general idea, but an unspoofable "download tracking system" would be hard to pull off. An idea I suggested (pre-iTunes) was a licensing system to replace digital copyright. Teh governmentz sets up a central Music/Film/Book Library server containing all published digital works. Vendors subscribe to it, which gives them the right to resell any work. The vendors are the only ones who need to track downloads. Government distributes royalties. Vendors don't have to negotiate with individual publishing companies, teh government sets all rates. It's not free-for-users, but it's a step away from existing stupidity.)

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735142)

Yeah, or maybe people could take government-backed paper notes and give them to the artists as a way of supporting what they do. As they get more of these notes, they can exchange the notes for goods and services that will possibly allow them to gain more public exposure, produce better-sounding music, and collaborate with elite talent that can possibly bring new dynamics to their art.

Oh wait, that's what capitalism is doing right now. Shit; nevermind.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735348)

What exactly do you have against the term "living wage"? Did it murder your grandmother or something?

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735096)

Why stop at muric and other art forms? Why not have all thing available for any amount you wish to pay?
I want to buy food? Great, I'll go to the Walmart and take whatever I want and pay whatever I want. And I don't have enough money, or just don't feel like paying? Have the government give everyone a living wage.
And why stop there? You want a new oven? Same thing. Don't pay! Have the government subsidize it.

Although Art has many lofty goals, it is also a source of income for people. If the artist demand a price for it, you should pay. If he gives it for free, great! But to tell the artist he shouldn't charge for his work while using great-sounding socialist ideals (which, BTW, worked so great for Mother Russia), is naive at best, and stupid at worst.

Re:Copyright Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34736046)

Um.

Russia is the richest country in the world, by far.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736564)

It may be so, but I was talking about Soviet Russia, AKA U.S.S.R, AKA the greatest experiment in socialism .

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736222)

"I want to buy food? Great, I'll go to the Walmart and take whatever I want and pay whatever I want."

You can copy it, not take it, the original has to stay at Walmart.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736556)

Yes, it's easy to copy a song, however, the artist that created it still needs to be paid. If everyone copied for free, then he has a problem. And I don't think he should be living on a government grant. He deserves more than that, and definitely more than the cashier in Walmart.

Re:Copyright Rocks (2)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735244)

I second Basic Income, it would be a great way of not only encouraging creative activities, but new small business creation as some of the risk is taken away with an unconditional basic income no matter what. And it would guarantee that no one dependent on existing programs fall through the cracks and risk homelessness or even starvation for lack of money, while at the same time virtually eliminating the costly bureaucracy surrounding the existing programs. A basic income guarantee is unconditional, it is not dependent on any factors, not even income, you only have to make sure that each person gets one basic income and no more, thus reducing the need for bureaucracy greatly.
I've read a lot about the matter. The movement doesn't have much steam here in Sweden (the Greens used to have it in their party platform, but never made an issue out of it, not sure if they do any more) but is apparently quite a bit stronger in Germany.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735444)

And just where do we get the money for "basic income"? Who pays?

Don't just say "the government", because that just takes the question up a level, to where does the government get the money to pay you? Etc.

Actually, I'm all for the government paying anyone and everyone a basic income. Only thing is, to get it you have to do whatever work its is that the government needs done. Roads. Garbage collection. Sanitation. School bus drivers.

If the government is going to pay out money, they should darn well get something for it. Don't want to work at all? Fine. We won't let your kids starve, but you, sir, can eat dirt.

Re:Copyright Rocks (2)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735490)

Requiring people to work for their basic income sort of defeats the purpose of an *unconditional* basic income..

As for who pays, the taxpayers of course, just as they pay for the myriad of programs designed to keep people off the streets now. The added cost in Sweden at least would be pretty minor, it is a pretty small group of people who are completely left out in the cold, but they do exist. The reduced cost of the bureaucracy behind all of the means-testing going on in the various agencies would cover part of it.

Before you use the common argument of reduced incentive to work, studies have showed that this is quite minimal in pilot tests. And considering the high unemployment rate (even in a good economy, unemployment is rarely below 4%), a slightly reduced incentive to work is not necessarily a bad thing, slightly fewer hours per capita also means there is work for more people in order to make up the difference...

Re:Copyright Rocks (4, Insightful)

devent (1627873) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735494)

You know what else we could do? Just put copyright back to place. To the good old days where you have to register your copyright and where it's only lasted 14 years.

We should limit copyright even more because with the internet it's so easy to publish. The limit should be 5 years now, with +5 years extend.

With a sane copyright law the artists and the publisher could come up with new ideas how to make money instead of be depended of an indefinitely state granted monopoly. What we have now is already socialism. It's worse, it's planed economy.

With the political power that such groups as the RIAA and MAFIA have and the laws behind them (100+ years copyright, DMCA, etc.) we could just make them government owned like in China and call them Office for Arts, Music, Movies.

With a limited copyright we could finally have a rich public domain, which is the most import factor for new innovation. Without a rich public domain there are no work available to build upon, for which all works we have now are build upon older works and ideas.

Re:Copyright Rocks (2)

Sique (173459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736280)

We could even go with the fashion industry's concept, which doesn't have any copyright protection at all. And as we know, fashion designers are notoriously poor, don't have a chance to earn a decent living, and we are forced to wear the same design for dozens of years because no one has any incentive to create new clothes designs.
Or we could be the food industry, where recipes aren't protected by anything, not even trademarks (the trademarks itself are protected though). And as we know, no one ever got rich from inventing any new recipes.

Mod parent up! (1)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735500)

How is this either troll or flamebait? Slashdot mods gone insane with rage. Could it be the mention of socialism? McCarthyism still seems to be running high among Americans.

Mod parent up!

Re:Copyright Rocks (2)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735858)

and the horse you rode in on.

The horse I rode in on is an experimental bio-fueled vehicle.

The complaints about its exhaust are overblown.

Have they improved on it? Nay.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735918)

Let the people decide what they like by downloading stuff and give those artists a living wage paid for with taxes.

So all the RIAA and MPAA have to do is fudge a little download information and divide the payout however they want. We can trust them not to do that, right?

Quick question: WTF ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY HAVE YOU BEEN FOLLOWING?!!!

Re:Copyright Rocks (2)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736262)

You know what would rock even more? If we could have both music and movies and and all the other art that we can spread across the world to everyone with a computer virtually for free as well as having the poor artists not starving.

An it would totally rock if everyone had access to all digitalized culture legally, so one wouldn't have to feel bad or fear a one in a million chance of personal economic disaster.

And we can. All it takes is a little socialism. Let the people decide what they like by downloading stuff and give those artists a living wage paid for with taxes.

(Another solution, even easier to administer, would be basic income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee [wikipedia.org] )

Anyway... Socialism FTW and fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Peace.

Or - any artist, performer, actor, director, writer who feels strongly about defending the way the current studio/distribution system treats them - publicly put up their paypal (or bank account details). An account the studios don't control. Then those that support the artist - but not the distributors, can donate money directly. What's that going to hurt? If they recieve money, and they don't want it - they can donate it to a worthy cause. But you can bet the studios won't let that happen!

In Australia - with certain restrictions, terms written on the back of a cheque are legally binding - what if people who like musician x sent him a cheque, and on that cheque it said "Dear x, I enjoyed your song/album y but I don't like the manager/company who fucked you over on the royalties - please accept my payment for $z on the condition you don't share it with said manager/company, sincerely a fan".?.

Nourish the share-cropper, starve the slave master. Viva the intelligent revolution!

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736524)

So, instead of the current system, where the 10% of a creative work's users/viewers/listeners that don't pirate pay for its production, we'll have a system where you essentially have to pay for a creative work whether you use it or not?

Re:Copyright Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734462)

You are not entitled to the sweat of their brows or all the time out of their lives that it takes to actually learn how to play an instrument, become a good actor, etc.

Neither is the RIAA/MPAA, who gets about 90% of the profit from these artists with almost none of the work behind them.

Re:Copyright Rocks (2, Insightful)

windcask (1795642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734546)

The artists know the drill when they sign up. They could keep a lot more of the money if they started their own labels or even signed to high-tier independents, but they want the bright lights of the stadium.

with almost none of the work behind them.

I fail to see how sitting around while smoking dope and writing poetry qualifies as more "work" than seeking out new talent, managing budgets for studio and tours, organizing promotions and buying ad space, reading the public sentiment towards particular genres and aspects of music, etc., all while employing thousands and providing for their families. The lazy bastards.

I'm no fan of MAFIAA world dominance, but I know a spade when I see one.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734812)

Oh, come on now, everyone here at Slashdot knows we could be the ones making the big bucks calling the shots at mega corporations but instead we've decided to sit around and poke fun at those short-sighted fools who roll in the big bucks. It's a choice, my boy, we chose to make modest or poor wages slaving for The Man instead.

All kidding aside, most of the people who spit on copyright are mostly the ones who'd hear nothing about putting up their money on what is a start up venture like signing a band. While it is getting cheaper to produce albums it still isn't cheap. At the same time learning one's craft well enough to rise above the typical bar band or club DJ isn't cheap or easy either.

Re:Copyright Rocks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734894)

The artists know the drill when they sign up. They could keep a lot more of the money if they started their own labels or even signed to high-tier independents, but they want the bright lights of the stadium.

with almost none of the work behind them.

I fail to see how sitting around while smoking dope and writing poetry qualifies as more "work" than seeking out new talent, managing budgets for studio and tours, organizing promotions and buying ad space, reading the public sentiment towards particular genres and aspects of music, etc., all while employing thousands and providing for their families. The lazy bastards.

I'm no fan of MAFIAA world dominance, but I know a spade when I see one.

Game Accessories [eshoptop.net] are sold like hot cakes!
Do you need PSP 64MB memory cards? wii gun and other wii items? We can supply that kind of hot selling game products [eshoptop.net] . It's no doubt that we can help you of larger market share of this kinds of products as we are specialist in it.We are your best choice. Please be confident of our mutual benefit and bright business future !
Wholesaler : http://www.eshoptop.net

Copyright is NOT the issue - it's the distraction. (3, Insightful)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734618)

You are not entitled to the sweat of their brows or all the time out of their lives that it takes to actually learn how to play an instrument, become a good actor, etc.

Neither is the RIAA/MPAA, who gets about 90% of the profit from these artists with almost none of the work behind them.

It's way to easy to see the whole "piracy" issue as *just* two opposing viewpoints. And, to me, neither view stacks up. I strongly suspect both camps are being naive and manipulated. And here's my reasoning:-

  • Copying as theft is, well, obviously rubbish.
  • Give people the ability to not pay for something - be it bread or circus - will mostly result in people taking more than if they had to pay.

My point here being that neither party is "completely" right. Copying doesn't reduce the industries revenue stream as much as claimed - though it doesn't make the impact the industry claims it does. I'll leave the value of promotion out of this - it's a red herring.

Why would an immensely profitable industry spend a fortune on a demonstrably pointless pursuit? The assertion that they are total idiots contradicts their success.

Follow the money is the method that should be applied. Do that and it appears obvious (to me) that the "industry" is spending vast amounts of money because it is a cost effective way for them to protect their income. The mistake pro-pirates make is believing the product is the income stream. IMO they are wrong and have been deliberately been fooled.

The industry is profitable and powerful because it controls distribution. The RIAA/MPAA campaign is not about stopping copying it's about stifling an alternative distribution network.

Re:Copyright is NOT the issue - it's the distracti (1)

KarlIsNotMyName (1529477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734740)

  • Give people the ability to not pay for something - be it bread or circus - will mostly result in people taking more than if they had to pay.

Well, that wouldn't affect anyone. If they only take more when they don't have to pay, if they had to pay, no one would be making more.

I believe there might be a certain amount losses in sales to copyright violations, but a whole lot less than the industry want us to believe. And as you say, there's a lot more to it than sale of recordings. Which might benefit from increased distrubution even if it isn't increased sales.

Re:Copyright is NOT the issue - it's the distracti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734918)

Guys, there is a very simple solution to this problem: make the publishers go away.
Artists can sell their music on the internet, they don't need publishers who record their CDs anymore.

Artists could earn more money if the publishers went away while still lowering the prices of their albums. It's a win-win for artists and we, the customers. The losers are the publishers who are pretty much useless. And frankly, fighting 'pirates' is no reason to be a dick to honest people, so I have no sympathy for the publishers.

Re:Copyright is NOT the issue - it's the distracti (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735372)

Guys, there is a very simple solution to this problem: make the publishers go away.

Agreed

Artists can sell their music on the internet, they don't need publishers who record their CDs anymore.

Only when the audience can hear about them - web pages rely on search engines - which can, and will, be gamed. Fine if you're Devo or Radiohead, maybe ok if you're Courtney Love, and if no one has ever heard of you? You what - rely on SEO experts?

The internet is no more a threat to the established studio monopoly than radio or television - bittorrent over the internet is the threat. It's the subversive technology. Web sites are no more a threat to the existing system than ads in local newspapers and junk mail.

I also doubt that twits and facefriends can, or will, change the existing order.

Re:Copyright is NOT the issue - it's the distracti (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734756)

>>> it's about stifling an alternative distribution network.

Is that why I have to wait 30 days before I can see the latest SGU or Caprica episode on syfy.com? Yep. Well if they think I'm going to pay to subscribe to Comcast and Syfy Channel, then they can just think again. I can wait a long, long time until I can see it for free or cheap (DVD rental).

Re:Copyright is NOT the issue - it's the distracti (2)

Beardmonster (1346161) | more than 3 years ago | (#34736636)

You can't expect much subtlety in catch phrases and propaganda. But I can assure you that the thought process doesn't end there when pro-pirates are concerned, and I assume the same is true for the anti-pirates.

Copying information has been easy and nearly costless for quite some time. What the internets have provided us with is a very easy and nearly costless way to connect people and publish and distribute information. All organizations (in its most inclusive meaning) that have benefited from the earlier situation where high costs were associated with connecting people as well as publishing and distributing information, are in one way or another threated by this development. This includes e.g. the copyright industry as well as the catholic church and even the national state itself, even though it may not be immediately obvious. All these organizations will try to defend themselves, and we will have a major struggle for quite some time, but I really don't think opposing communication among people will work out very well in the long run.

Here comes everybody, by Clay Shirky, explains some of these things in more detail. It's a great book.

Re:Copyright Rocks (2)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734624)

You are not entitled to the sweat of their brows

I like the flamebait. Always entertaining. Though it's so hard to determine whether the trolls are lying or actually believe it. But sentences like that are golden. The rule is quite explicitly that "sweat of the brow" is not protected. That is, if you take someone else's plans and build a house, you have no copyright to the result, no matter how "beautiful" it is. It was not a creative work on the part of the builder. The same with any other act where it is created with work, but not novel creativity.

So yes, we are entitled to the sweat of their brow. Just because it was hard to do doesn't mean it is copyrightable.

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734650)

He finally realized what a dirty, thieving bastard he was trying to get everybody to be.

As a copyright infringer, I often break into peoples' houses and rob them blind!

Re:Copyright Rocks (1)

HelloKitty2 (1585373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734790)

I'm Swedish and I approve of this message.

sweden? was rape involved? (-1, Troll)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734324)

come on, I make joke.

but you know, we all know what this joke relates to. a year ago, it would not have made sense.

I now think of sweden as a 'high risk' country; meaning, women can sue youor have you arrested easily if you look at them thee wrong way.

good going, sweden.

sigh.

Re:sweden? was rape involved? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734360)

Why is parent modded as troll? He's got a very valid opinion on the matter. About 90% of all rape allegations in Sweden don't even result in charges.

Re:sweden? was rape involved? (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734484)

Why is parent modded as troll? He's got a very valid opinion on the matter. About 90% of all rape allegations in Sweden don't even result in charges.

So you "believe" the assertion that "looking" at women in Sweden can "easily" get you sued or arrested or sued is not a troll? No need to state your true agenda either.

If I'd modded it I'd have kicked it down as "off topic", your post on the other-hand is a "troll".

"Valid opinion" == sophism. So's your second sentence. No matter how strongly you feel you've somehow been wronged (or slighted) making up bullshit to support your viewpoint will always work against you.

Re:sweden? was rape involved? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734532)

No matter how strongly you feel you've somehow been wronged (or slighted) making up bullshit to support your viewpoint will always work against you.

Except if you're a politician in the United States of America (tm); then it's encouraged.

Re:sweden? was rape involved? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734534)

Why is parent modded as troll? He's got a very valid opinion on the matter. About 90% of all rape allegations in Sweden don't even result in charges.

So you "believe" the assertion that "looking" at women in Sweden can "easily" get you sued or arrested or sued is not a troll?

Looking at women, yeah a troll. But looking at women the wrong way, not a troll, must be +1 Funny or Interesting

Re:sweden? was rape involved? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734906)

Wouldn't it be cool though to have a country where the women totally oppressed the men, where the men had to travel around in veils, where the women worked and the man stays home; where the man has to file false lawsuits alleging rape by the woman? It would be awesome.

Hmm, nope... I'm not into BDSM. Why do you ask?

There, fixed it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34734344)

"Five years to the day after he created the first Pirate Party, Dread Captain Rickard Falkvinge has walked the plank as leader of Piratpartiet, the Swedish Pirate Party. The announcement was made on the high seas under sword-point with Falkvinge and his First Mate Anna Troberg, with Troberg taking on his duties effective immediately. May his bones rest quietly in Davy Jones' locker. Arr!"

Re:There, fixed it (3, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734402)

They shouldn't have announced it. Anna Troberg could have started calling herself Dread Captain Falkvinge and nobody would have noticed.

Anna Troberg (0)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734432)

Wait, isn't she one of the chicks that was banging the Wikileaks guy?

Re:Anna Troberg (1)

matthiasvegh (1800634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734448)

no.

Re:Anna Troberg (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734470)

Well for all we know he might have been banging all the Annas in Sweeden, but we know that Anna Troberg hasn't complained about it anyway.

Re:Anna Troberg (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734528)

No, you're thinking of Anna Ardin [skandinaviflorida.com] , Assange's (former?) press secretary.

Re:Anna Troberg (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735216)

Wait, isn't she one of the chicks that was banging the Wikileaks guy?

Since Anna Troberg is a lesbian that's not very likely...

So he's retiring to Patagonia right? (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34734846)

And in another few years, Anna will retire and another will come along.

They should think about franchising...

no more no more (1)

chibiace (898665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34735318)

enough partying, time to plunder!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...