Seriously man? It's gotta take a ton of arrogance to generalize and state that you have any clue about the attitudes of millions of people that you've never even met. It would be one thing if you said, "My buddy down the street has this attitude thing that makes him disrespect copyright laws by going to TPB, and there's this other dude I know that just shoots people when he gets pissed off", but to say that all of these other people that you know have the same mentality? That's quite a step. Must be an AC thing.
It shouldn't surprise me, but it still does to see someone have such arrogance. Don't get me wrong...I believe that the average person is perfectly capable of watching another person and making competent judgments about their attitudes and personality (heck, how else would we walk down the street and decide to trust those around us? We HAVE to make SOME judgments). Yours, however, have no basis in either observation or science...so unless you can come up with another source, the only other one (in my experience) that I've seen people draw from is belief - either religious or because Daddy always said so.
If some sort of belief is the basis of what you think, then you need to be honest about that to yourself first and then to the rest of us. Otherwise, we can't have any sort of reasonable discussion. The funny part about discussion is that you really can't good discussion unless people have reasoning/logic skills and are honest with one another.
To address your points, I agree 100% that society as a whole shows very little respect for other people. But, most of the time, I think the issue is not with the other person not giving you respect. The issue is with the entitlement attitude that many people have that they DESERVE respect. I'm sorry, but life doesn't work that way. You almost always have to earn respect and loyalty from people. I don't think that's a new thing at all. I think the NEW thing is the entitlement attitude that people have.
Funny thing is that it's these "entitled" people that are demanding that the rest of us give up our rights as citizens because they can't sit on their fat arses and make money off of us. The rest of the business world has to work all day to earn their pay. But, many in the content and recording industries believe that they are entitled to make a certain amount of money at a certain rate. That's fine...if they provide me with the product that I want so that I buy it. Otherwise, my money is going elsewhere...and yes, I will rip my CDs and DVDs to my hard drive to back them up and play them in the manner of my choosing...
If that's an entitled attitude or the "mentality" that you speak of, well...you need to get a grip. You can try and tell me that everything's ok because I don't download from TPB all the time or I don't share all my stuff with the whole world, but it's not really...see...after you come for the guy next to me because he's not paying you enough money for the content he doesn't want, then you're gonna come for me next...
I think he meant to say that, in other countries, the average connection is provided with higher bandwidth and at a lower cost premium...in the US, most people who live in major cities have an edge over the rest of us by quite a bit. You might be able to get your FIOS connection for $35 a month...but I am stuck with DSL or Cable, which both provide a 1-1.5 Mbps connection at almost $40 a month...
Refraining from using anecdotal evidence to make a universal negative will help. You might have a good connection for a decent price, but even if you are out in the boonies somewhere...study after study has shown that the US is VERY behind in bandwidth speed per cost ratio.
Yes, but...SOME of us here in the US are stuck with the single choice or duopoly that is in place. We are the ones who spend $40 a month for a 1.5Mbps cable connection that drops off the face of the planet during any sort of busy time (think evening...so...anytime that I would use it).
It's not always even about speed. Mostly...I just want to be able to use my connection.
Whether or not you believe the scientific community behind intelligent design, it doesn't matter. It's a supposedly non-profit scientific community that supports teaching the questioning of the evolutionary theories. That's a completely different kind of organization than the RIAA - who are out to brainwash the next generation for their own profit (er...profit for their members). For this reason (the questioning of commonly held theory), the Intelligent Design community is a good thing (whether you hold to evolution or not)...I think your beef is with fundamentalists who are quite a bit more extreme. Even then, as the next AC has noticed...it shouldn't matter whether we accept the teaching of some other dogma or not. If our kids are being brainwashed even by truth, it should bother you.
Yep...try asking...it seems too many companies are convinced they ALREADY know what the consumer wants. Or, they fix their own surveys by using a non-random sampling that skews their results and end up shoving products at people that they don't want. Then they complain that people are cheating them because their business model doesn't work.
Companies are ALWAYS faced with the dilemma of finding out what the consumer wants. It's part of what separates the chaff from the wheat so to speak. Good companies figure it out, whether the first time, or in subsequent iterations. Bad companies fail and complain. The responsibility for that falls on the companies shoulders. Suck it up. Do whatever it takes to find out. Stop giving excuses. That's unprofessional bull-crap...
Also, if it floats like a duck...then it must be a witch!!
Seriously, though...legitimate questions have been raised in this case about the honesty, transparency, and apparent conflicts of interest in this case. I'd say that a LOT of explanation is needed.
So...what you mean is that Teva's existence owes nothing whatsoever to copyright as far as we know, but it probably owes its size as the world's largest manufacturer to the established system?
I think, in this case, your conclusions are a bit stretched. While it is true that most people probably are responsible for this happening, I can still see the possibility of others whose information is stolen outside of their control. Banks have been hacked before...whether or not it's common or not, the mere fact that it is possible should at least give your conclusions some pause, right?
We will be sending you legal notice soon for your company's blocking of our websites. We require that you always allow traffic to our web pages and block all content from any possibly infringing website, or any website that discusses such said infringing activity or advocates free-speech, consumer rights, or any other sort of rights of the individual.
We will be sending out notices to our puppet congressmen about your blatant refusal to heed these expectations and will, furthermore, be seeing you soon in court.
Notice, all our web domains require a daily subscription fee of $100 per individual in your organization. Failure to visit our website at least once per day will be prosecuted to the fullest extent that we can stretch the DMCA (if it doesn't work, be warned...DMCA 2.0 is coming!)
We will be sending you legal notice soon for your company's blocking of our websites. We require that you always allow traffic to our web pages and block all content from any possibly infringing website, or any website that discusses such said infringing activity or advocates free-speech, consumer rights, or any other sort of rights of the individual.
We will be sending out notices to our puppet congressmen about your blatant refusal to heed these expectations and will, furthermore, be seeing you soon in court.
Notice, all our web domains require a daily subscription fee of $100 per individual in your organization. Failure to visit our website at least once per day will be prosecuted to the fullest extent that we can stretch the DMCA (if it doesn't work, be warned...DMCA 2.0 is coming!)
I still have a hard time finding anything that actually gives employers any sort of incentive to treat their employees with some sort of respect or give them adequate compensation unless those employees are irreplaceable or at least difficult to replace.
The issue when dealing with Wal-Mart is that Wal-Mart realizes that it can find cheap labor anywhere. So, the employee never has any recourse. Couple this with Wal-Mart's notoriously abusive managers, and you inevitably have serious issues.
So, now we're left with employees that need a job, but have no recourse to address the abuses of their time and person. I'd say their only option is unionization (disclaimer: I am 99.9% anti-union...personally, I'd like to see the auto industry fail so that we can completely overhaul it and make it more efficient..eliminating the unions is the most important part of that).
Also, you should note that, during the training course for Wal-Mart, you are pretty much outright told that even mentioning unions yourself or being reported by someone as mentioning unions is grounds for firing (I kinda wonder if this varies by state?). There is also an anti-union training video that you must watch. Also note, this is personal experience (I've worked three jobs before...) and confirmation from multiple other persons from various other wal-marts.
Anyone else run into this same experience?
I wouldn't mind Wal-Mart at all if it wasn't for the bullshit they put their own employees through. I can't stand companies that don't respect their employees at all (add other company names here adhoc...)
The (seeming) consensus that I've seen here at Techdirt is the latter - those maximalists seem to wield quite a large disproportionate influence. Then again, this would make more sense as those who benefit the most from copyright maximalism are those who currently are benefiting from it - hence, they already have the wealth and power to continue growing that wealth and power...
Ya...but trying to lay the costs of that small segment at the feet of everyone else as a "punishment" is what causes the anger and rage at the music industry for its stupidity. More importantly, some of yall need to come to understand that the "piracy" of digital bytes is NOT the same thing as stealing. Theft IS occurring, but the theft is being carried out by the industry when the rights of citizens are being taken by trumping with the industry's demands.
Maybe if someone pushed the AARP to do something, this could be overturned...as one of the single largest lobbying organizations, the AARP holds pretty big sway...
I'm thinking about all of those old people who come into the pharmacy and are pissed off because their insurance company denied their claims (yet again...) and Wal-Mart can't carry generics anymore because of this increase to the patent period.
Sometimes, I wonder if these idiots were just born this stupid?!?!
I think you've hit more on a philosophical problem than anything...What exactly is the creative work of a programmer? We all know it exists, but is it really the code? The code that a programmer writes is just a set of instructions for a computer to generate "something". Therefore, the code is not really the "art" that we describe, but instructions on how to reproduce it. So, I think you are right when you say that it makes no sense that the code is copyright in the first place as it should be the actual representation (just as it is in other creative fields) - the actual program while it is running, similar to a specific performance.
So, then, what exactly is the creative act of the programmer? I think it's really that act of coming up with the solution to something in the brain and converting that solution into code. No offense, but good luck trying to remove that from my head...you can retain all copyright from everything that I write, but I can't help the fact that I remember virtually everything that I write. To me, copying my own code is the same as me making copies of anything that I have ever written down. Can the school that I graduated from demand that I remove all copies of papers that I wrote and turned in years ago?
I think we're treading a really thin line here determining where corporate and individual rights overlap and determining which hold sway. Personally, I am of the school that individual rights should always trump corporate rights, but I can still see why corporations are so frustrated. In the end, I think that any corporation that depends on copyright and protection to support their business model is looking at one of two possible choices for continued success in the future:
(1) find a new business model - this idea has been frequently discussed at TechDirt...but what about the other?
(2) Remove rights from individuals altogether and give them to the state or to corporations - this will lead us to either Corporatocracy (some think we're already there) or Facism (also another fear)...this is the only logical means by which corporations can extend the protection that they so desire into the future...
Personally, I think its all rather scary, seeing as how those who would benefit from such political changes are already in positions of power that are needed to do so...
RSS
Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as kirillian)
Also...I should add that Dark Helmet's comments are extra good today. And actually serious?!?! for the rare occasion...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (as kirillian)
Seriously man? It's gotta take a ton of arrogance to generalize and state that you have any clue about the attitudes of millions of people that you've never even met. It would be one thing if you said, "My buddy down the street has this attitude thing that makes him disrespect copyright laws by going to TPB, and there's this other dude I know that just shoots people when he gets pissed off", but to say that all of these other people that you know have the same mentality? That's quite a step. Must be an AC thing.
It shouldn't surprise me, but it still does to see someone have such arrogance. Don't get me wrong...I believe that the average person is perfectly capable of watching another person and making competent judgments about their attitudes and personality (heck, how else would we walk down the street and decide to trust those around us? We HAVE to make SOME judgments). Yours, however, have no basis in either observation or science...so unless you can come up with another source, the only other one (in my experience) that I've seen people draw from is belief - either religious or because Daddy always said so.
If some sort of belief is the basis of what you think, then you need to be honest about that to yourself first and then to the rest of us. Otherwise, we can't have any sort of reasonable discussion. The funny part about discussion is that you really can't good discussion unless people have reasoning/logic skills and are honest with one another.
To address your points, I agree 100% that society as a whole shows very little respect for other people. But, most of the time, I think the issue is not with the other person not giving you respect. The issue is with the entitlement attitude that many people have that they DESERVE respect. I'm sorry, but life doesn't work that way. You almost always have to earn respect and loyalty from people. I don't think that's a new thing at all. I think the NEW thing is the entitlement attitude that people have.
Funny thing is that it's these "entitled" people that are demanding that the rest of us give up our rights as citizens because they can't sit on their fat arses and make money off of us. The rest of the business world has to work all day to earn their pay. But, many in the content and recording industries believe that they are entitled to make a certain amount of money at a certain rate. That's fine...if they provide me with the product that I want so that I buy it. Otherwise, my money is going elsewhere...and yes, I will rip my CDs and DVDs to my hard drive to back them up and play them in the manner of my choosing...
If that's an entitled attitude or the "mentality" that you speak of, well...you need to get a grip. You can try and tell me that everything's ok because I don't download from TPB all the time or I don't share all my stuff with the whole world, but it's not really...see...after you come for the guy next to me because he's not paying you enough money for the content he doesn't want, then you're gonna come for me next...
Re: RE: AC Post 1 (as kirillian)
I think he meant to say that, in other countries, the average connection is provided with higher bandwidth and at a lower cost premium...in the US, most people who live in major cities have an edge over the rest of us by quite a bit. You might be able to get your FIOS connection for $35 a month...but I am stuck with DSL or Cable, which both provide a 1-1.5 Mbps connection at almost $40 a month...
Refraining from using anecdotal evidence to make a universal negative will help. You might have a good connection for a decent price, but even if you are out in the boonies somewhere...study after study has shown that the US is VERY behind in bandwidth speed per cost ratio.
Re: Ad hominem... (as kirillian)
What a well-reasoned and expressed thought. Man I wish there were more of these!
Re: Re: Broadband? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (as kirillian)
Yes, but...SOME of us here in the US are stuck with the single choice or duopoly that is in place. We are the ones who spend $40 a month for a 1.5Mbps cable connection that drops off the face of the planet during any sort of busy time (think evening...so...anytime that I would use it).
It's not always even about speed. Mostly...I just want to be able to use my connection.
Re: (as kirillian)
Whether or not you believe the scientific community behind intelligent design, it doesn't matter. It's a supposedly non-profit scientific community that supports teaching the questioning of the evolutionary theories. That's a completely different kind of organization than the RIAA - who are out to brainwash the next generation for their own profit (er...profit for their members). For this reason (the questioning of commonly held theory), the Intelligent Design community is a good thing (whether you hold to evolution or not)...I think your beef is with fundamentalists who are quite a bit more extreme. Even then, as the next AC has noticed...it shouldn't matter whether we accept the teaching of some other dogma or not. If our kids are being brainwashed even by truth, it should bother you.
Re: Oh, boy, 20:20 hindsight again! (as kirillian)
Yep...try asking...it seems too many companies are convinced they ALREADY know what the consumer wants. Or, they fix their own surveys by using a non-random sampling that skews their results and end up shoving products at people that they don't want. Then they complain that people are cheating them because their business model doesn't work.
Companies are ALWAYS faced with the dilemma of finding out what the consumer wants. It's part of what separates the chaff from the wheat so to speak. Good companies figure it out, whether the first time, or in subsequent iterations. Bad companies fail and complain. The responsibility for that falls on the companies shoulders. Suck it up. Do whatever it takes to find out. Stop giving excuses. That's unprofessional bull-crap...
Re: Re: (as kirillian)
Also, if it floats like a duck...then it must be a witch!!
Seriously, though...legitimate questions have been raised in this case about the honesty, transparency, and apparent conflicts of interest in this case. I'd say that a LOT of explanation is needed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: (as kirillian)
So...what you mean is that Teva's existence owes nothing whatsoever to copyright as far as we know, but it probably owes its size as the world's largest manufacturer to the established system?
Re: (as kirillian)
I think, in this case, your conclusions are a bit stretched. While it is true that most people probably are responsible for this happening, I can still see the possibility of others whose information is stolen outside of their control. Banks have been hacked before...whether or not it's common or not, the mere fact that it is possible should at least give your conclusions some pause, right?
Spammers (as kirillian)
Are the spammers just trying to let us know what their price is? Apparently, he likes Ed Hardy's clothes? I think...
Re: Re: Question (as kirillian)
dang it...first time I got a double post...now i understand where this all comes from
Re: Question (as kirillian)
We will be sending you legal notice soon for your company's blocking of our websites. We require that you always allow traffic to our web pages and block all content from any possibly infringing website, or any website that discusses such said infringing activity or advocates free-speech, consumer rights, or any other sort of rights of the individual.
We will be sending out notices to our puppet congressmen about your blatant refusal to heed these expectations and will, furthermore, be seeing you soon in court.
Notice, all our web domains require a daily subscription fee of $100 per individual in your organization. Failure to visit our website at least once per day will be prosecuted to the fullest extent that we can stretch the DMCA (if it doesn't work, be warned...DMCA 2.0 is coming!)
Re: Question (as kirillian)
We will be sending you legal notice soon for your company's blocking of our websites. We require that you always allow traffic to our web pages and block all content from any possibly infringing website, or any website that discusses such said infringing activity or advocates free-speech, consumer rights, or any other sort of rights of the individual.
We will be sending out notices to our puppet congressmen about your blatant refusal to heed these expectations and will, furthermore, be seeing you soon in court.
Notice, all our web domains require a daily subscription fee of $100 per individual in your organization. Failure to visit our website at least once per day will be prosecuted to the fullest extent that we can stretch the DMCA (if it doesn't work, be warned...DMCA 2.0 is coming!)
Wal-MArt's Anti-Union Stance (as kirillian)
I still have a hard time finding anything that actually gives employers any sort of incentive to treat their employees with some sort of respect or give them adequate compensation unless those employees are irreplaceable or at least difficult to replace.
The issue when dealing with Wal-Mart is that Wal-Mart realizes that it can find cheap labor anywhere. So, the employee never has any recourse. Couple this with Wal-Mart's notoriously abusive managers, and you inevitably have serious issues.
So, now we're left with employees that need a job, but have no recourse to address the abuses of their time and person. I'd say their only option is unionization (disclaimer: I am 99.9% anti-union...personally, I'd like to see the auto industry fail so that we can completely overhaul it and make it more efficient..eliminating the unions is the most important part of that).
Also, you should note that, during the training course for Wal-Mart, you are pretty much outright told that even mentioning unions yourself or being reported by someone as mentioning unions is grounds for firing (I kinda wonder if this varies by state?). There is also an anti-union training video that you must watch. Also note, this is personal experience (I've worked three jobs before...) and confirmation from multiple other persons from various other wal-marts.
Anyone else run into this same experience?
I wouldn't mind Wal-Mart at all if it wasn't for the bullshit they put their own employees through. I can't stand companies that don't respect their employees at all (add other company names here adhoc...)
Re: Re: Re:Few Copyright maximalists (as kirillian)
The (seeming) consensus that I've seen here at Techdirt is the latter - those maximalists seem to wield quite a large disproportionate influence. Then again, this would make more sense as those who benefit the most from copyright maximalism are those who currently are benefiting from it - hence, they already have the wealth and power to continue growing that wealth and power...
Re: Re: Re: Hmmm .... just a thought.... (as kirillian)
Ya...but trying to lay the costs of that small segment at the feet of everyone else as a "punishment" is what causes the anger and rage at the music industry for its stupidity. More importantly, some of yall need to come to understand that the "piracy" of digital bytes is NOT the same thing as stealing. Theft IS occurring, but the theft is being carried out by the industry when the rights of citizens are being taken by trumping with the industry's demands.
Re: (as kirillian)
um...ya...I think that was what Mike was pointing out - only, he was questioning the sense of it all.
Perhaps the AARP? (as kirillian)
Maybe if someone pushed the AARP to do something, this could be overturned...as one of the single largest lobbying organizations, the AARP holds pretty big sway...
I'm thinking about all of those old people who come into the pharmacy and are pissed off because their insurance company denied their claims (yet again...) and Wal-Mart can't carry generics anymore because of this increase to the patent period.
Sometimes, I wonder if these idiots were just born this stupid?!?!
Re: Re: @Michial (as kirillian)
I think you've hit more on a philosophical problem than anything...What exactly is the creative work of a programmer? We all know it exists, but is it really the code? The code that a programmer writes is just a set of instructions for a computer to generate "something". Therefore, the code is not really the "art" that we describe, but instructions on how to reproduce it. So, I think you are right when you say that it makes no sense that the code is copyright in the first place as it should be the actual representation (just as it is in other creative fields) - the actual program while it is running, similar to a specific performance.
So, then, what exactly is the creative act of the programmer? I think it's really that act of coming up with the solution to something in the brain and converting that solution into code. No offense, but good luck trying to remove that from my head...you can retain all copyright from everything that I write, but I can't help the fact that I remember virtually everything that I write. To me, copying my own code is the same as me making copies of anything that I have ever written down. Can the school that I graduated from demand that I remove all copies of papers that I wrote and turned in years ago?
I think we're treading a really thin line here determining where corporate and individual rights overlap and determining which hold sway. Personally, I am of the school that individual rights should always trump corporate rights, but I can still see why corporations are so frustrated. In the end, I think that any corporation that depends on copyright and protection to support their business model is looking at one of two possible choices for continued success in the future:
(1) find a new business model - this idea has been frequently discussed at TechDirt...but what about the other?
(2) Remove rights from individuals altogether and give them to the state or to corporations - this will lead us to either Corporatocracy (some think we're already there) or Facism (also another fear)...this is the only logical means by which corporations can extend the protection that they so desire into the future...
Personally, I think its all rather scary, seeing as how those who would benefit from such political changes are already in positions of power that are needed to do so...