PassivePretentiousness
-
Posts
1,262 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by PassivePretentiousness
-
-
so is August 2nd the date for sure?
I'll go so long as the company I work for still exists.
where is all the gratuitous updating of the first post I have come to expect from these threads?
-
is it drivable/parkable?
-
intellectual property fight!!!!!
my favorite part is the multitude of specious arguments the anti-intellectual property crowd bounces between because each one by itself is not defensible
such as
-YO MAN IT AINT HURTING ANYONE
-the system in place is only to help the execs
-popular music sucks
-anyone who cares about making music doesn't care about the money
-any music that is worth anything and not crap is art and all art ultimately belongs to humanity
-et cetera
your logic is undeniable!
-
It looks like the best way for you to get there is to get to the Flatbush Ave. stop (might need to transfer at Jamaica? The Flatbush Ave. stop is by the Atlantic Ave./Flatbush Ave. subway station), and then pick your poison.
no u.
this is complicated enough dealing without public transportationary. I demand line by line directions; otherwise, I refuse to go unless someone who understands NYC like atma or dagney taggart to drags me around.
-
and four people
-
not the second weekend.
I'll probably be there otherwise.
-
I'm surprised that I'm agreeing with some of the people in this thread.
I don't really think video games are art not because of anything intrinsically wrong with the media, but that no one has fulfilled a criteria that could define art.
If you want to say that art is a skill or virtuosity to create, the term doesn't really mean anything since you might as well just call it skill or virtuosity since it doesn't have all the other loaded implications the word "art" conveys.
If you want to say that art is purely subjective and that scribbling is the equivalent of Picasso, then art again loses any real meaning and is an approximate synonym of "thing". If anything is art, nothing is art.
Art is a form of communication that can only take place through the media the artists choose. Conversation or essays can substitute for art if the message is logical and sequitur. On the other hand, if the message is to replicate an experience of the artist, to portray an inscrutable aspect of the human psyche, or to communicate the reasoning of a value or belief through allegorical or analogous representation, art is created. As long as this line of communication is maintained, that is to say, that the (educated) society reading it can still understand the underlying meaning of what the work was meant to portray, it is objectively art. Even if the work was not initially intended by the artist to portray a specific response, the agreement that the work does indeed do so (through accepted literary criticism, etc), it is objectively art; for example, a person in a vegetative state who inadvertently gives the finger is still offensive out of context [that is only in response to those who insist on eliminating the artist when evaluating the art- if you want to include the artist in the equation, my argument only becomes stronger].
So what video game constitutes art? I honestly cannot think of a single one. This may be because I have not really ventured too far into artsy gaming, and there are people out there who seem vaguely to know what they're talking about who rant on about Beyond Good and Evil (which both impresses me and set off alarms by referencing Nietzsche in its title). To mainstream, faux art games like the Metal Gear Solid series or ICO, what exactly makes it art? For the former, hamhanded, cliched truism that were established sixty years ago by Satre or conspiracy theories? What exactly is being communicated there that requires the unique perspective of video games (besides the occasional neat moment where you have to use the second controller or Snake takes off his mask, which really amounts to cleverness and virtuosity of making video games, and not in consciously communicating a real message)? For the latter, I really don't know what the fuss was about to begin with, as it all seemed to ever boil down to a unique motif rather than a unique message, although if you want to debate me in saying that its specific flavor of alienation and hopelessness somehow differs from the general vague concept played at by a few million other songs/books/paintings/etc ever since dada was popular shortly after the first world war, I'm all ears.
That isn't to say ICO is dada, just that dada established any theme ICO has before the great depression.
Please name me any video game that has a unique message or even portrayal of that message for which I cannot immediately cite three wikipedia links to art that already portrayed the message more clearly. Messages that are emotional in nature are obviously under less strict guidelines since they are less defined.
Ok I will give a single example of video games in general that could be construed as art; the first KOTOR as a testament to the nature of free will.
-
I always liked this one but kinda felt uncomfortable with how structurally similar this is to Building up Steam with a Grain of Salt.
-Opens with irrelevant quote
-Music starts (piano for dj shadow, synths/rhodes/whatever for skrypnyk)
-turntable crap, then over the music a self-referential quote is played
-slowly building drumloops with methodical melody, interspersed with neato drumwork and more random samples.
If anything it is a stylistic simplification because it doesn't begin introducing more sonic textures like dj shadow does.
I'm not claiming this is anything resembling plagiarism, but you could walk up to a random skilled electronic musician in the street, ask him to create a stylistically and structurally identical song to Building up Steam with a Grain of Salt, then replace the primary melody with sad song, you'd get this. If this was a generic rock or trance tune, this wouldn't really mean much, but the style and structure of this really define the song.
-
I don't really buy video games anymore so I often play old ones to zone out and concentrate my mind on something else that isn't a video game. Among these, san francisco rush 2049, rush 2, burnout, burnout 2, and to a lesser extant, zelda oot. I've beaten the latter all the way through something to the effect of 30 times.
-
are you drunk yet I am but not in your honor but ok fine I'll get more drunk in your honor.
-
this thread stinks of pseudoscience.
I entice dhsu to return and affirm my intuition.
-
All I really wanted was for you to explain what you meant, not link me to something and not say anything about it. Linking me to something without so much as an explanation is being a smartass. At least in my own point of view. I am however sorry if I have offended you and your perceptions.
I don't want to argue with you to the point of hate. I don't. It's not, and was never, my true intention. I admit, I do lead my argument with emotion, but unfortunately, I'm a human being with emotions and I do feel perplexed by people in society that don't even bother to consider the human component. So I was wrong to sit here and chastise you. But let's not let that stop us from actually going somewhere intelligent with the conversation, after all, that's what we're here for, an intellectual conversation.
If I don't understand something, I'll say so, and if you're so inclined, feel free to answer it. I just ask you not to response with just a link and no explanation whatsoever. A link by itself just tells me that you'd rather not take the time to explain something that you could either A) make simple, and
not insult me with.And again, I am sorry for my previous comments, the derogatory ones I've made in previous replies. I can see some of your points, and maybe can concede a few, but not all of them. I honestly do not believe that one side or the other can be 100% right on how to handle the interpretation of this kind of law, or the ramifications on the people. And when I say people at this point, I mean everyone involved from the consumer back to the top of the chain.
No matter who it affects, I realize that it will eventually directly or indirectly affect everyone. I just don't believe that you should alienate everyone for the sake of catching the few. It's like one person does something wrong, but you punish everyone. Sure, it certainly discourages the same behavior, but what have you really done? You've driven a wedge that cannot easily be removed, and possibly damaged any future relationship, business or otherwise, quite possibly irreparably.
Economics aside, how do you deal with that potentiality?
I don't feel like discussing the philosophical motivations of my attitudes in this thread. We can elsewhere if you want.
Regarding the notion of externality, it is not really applicable to this situation, although I can understand what you mean. I'll elaborate on the given example of pollution. When a company pollutes, it doesn't feel the true societal cost of providing its goods. Dirtier air causes people to be hit by a cost, but have no means of getting paid for it by the polluter. This causes the economy to overallocate (spend more resources on one good than it should to maximize utility). It does not really apply because the "transaction" that occurs when I give you music is not a legal and violates property rights upon which economic theory is based. It's similar to externalities inasmuch as you don't feel the costs of producing music, so the utility-maximizing "quantity" of that music file is spread over the economy. However, in this case, the damage felt is only to the record company and the spill over benefits to the US economy I already outlined, unless of course you sharing music causes more people to listen Yellowdcard or something; in which case, shame on you.
The attitude that sets me off about this is the idea that record companies already have enough money, so screw them. Enough by what standard? If you're talking from the standpoint of maximizing the total welfare of everyone in the company taken together, you're objectively wrong. The free sharing of intellectual property destroys the wealth of the one industry in the US that really still is dominant, and by extension, everyone else's wealth. Markets work best when people act while recognizing all cost of their actions. When that effect is disrupted, either by an externality, market power, or the destruction of property rights, our outcome isn't ideal. If we paid for our music, we would have more music and better music. Since we don't, those who do pay finance the happiness of all music lovers. Not very many people pay. I'm not mentioning the cost of enforcement, but since we don't know how they would go about it, I don't really know how one could claim that it is incontrovertibly incorrect and evil.
That is the pure economic justification. Politically and philosophically, I understand it purely by standards of natural rights. Civil rights are just really constructs of the government to make sure the government doesn't screw around too much when it's trying to, among other things, protect property rights. There's an upper limit and lower limit to what we'll accept, but there's no underlying reason to it. They just are what level of intrusion we'll allow this moment to protect natural rights. You said you agree with intellectual property rights, which implies you don't believe in it as a means to an end, but as an end in and of itself; that it is a natural right. I may not agree that such intrusion is worth it, but I also don't think it's crazy and evil and unbelievable and awful and stupid for them to band together. We already are ok with certain intrusions into our lives out of necessity, and the general direction we've been going in in this country, I understand where they're coming from. It's their property, their own backyard. If random anonymous people start lighting fires in yours, you'd probably be pushing the police to profile and identify them when those civil rights are iffy and already tread upon (when people come into the country), or when you are where you know wrongdoers are, like randomly searching a group of people when there is a strong likelihood that one of them has a bomb (when searching the records of an ISP). Would you require a search warrant in the latter situation? It's a very similar situation, only affecting life instead of property. So yeah, it's not really the same thing, but that's subjectively weighing one right against each other (which may sound reprehensible, but is done every day by the government, or by you personally, when you don't give a single dollar to Darfur or whatever). I don't agree with it, but I believe that strong actions of the RIAA are perfectly REASONABLE given where we do elsewhere, and cannot understand how it so ludicrously contradicts our standards outside of intellectual property.
-
saying that EA is in trouble with the law because it is requesting approval from the department of justice to acquire take-two is beyond ridiculous. companies willingly request approval because it's much easier than facing a challenge to the acquisition. It's common place for companies that have something like 15% of the market to request such approval. it means literally nothing, and far, far from even suggesting that they will soon become a target of the government.
Regarding the question of predatory pricing, it's slightly less ridiculous, but still, well, ridiculous. It is very hard to prove normally, and not really attempted by the prosecution ordinarily. To get it to stand up in court, you need to prove that EA is selling the games below invoice (in retail) or marginal cost, which means that you would need to prove that it costs more than $20 to produce one additional game. Those costs would be only the cost of making the physical game more or less. The reason why this is so strict is because, although there are clearly other costs involved in making the game, you really can't prove what is the true cost of producing each game by EA (the average total cost) in the real world. If they could disentangle it, this would be a landmark case to economists.
My knowledge is more along the lines of criminal cases and charges brought on by the DOJ, not civil cases, so I'm probably overstating this a little. Still while the requirement of confidence that the defendant has done something wrong drop from 99.999% sure to 99.5% sure, I can't imagine that they can establish that the average total cost for EA is more than $20. If they can't do that, what EA has done legally isn't monopolization. It's competition.
-
That is the most pathetic response I've ever seen.
Instead of sitting there, linking some article, why don't you explain it in terms I'm going to understand, and then I'll ask you questions. How about that, instead of a link to an article?
Why not respond to something with thought instead of emotion. there are people who study whether the money companies receive is justified. they are called economists. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand economics. However, you are much more skilled in all other areas of human study, and economics is just a bunch of people trying to make rich people feel justified anyways, so I wanted to learn more from you by allowing you to be more compassionate to the unfortunate predicament of my ignorance. Ignorance, that's all it is. I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about, since in matters of where meets business, economics is irrelevant. It fails to either consider the human side of the equation or provide anything resembling a scientific, empiric view of reality due to the of applying statistical analysis. I'm sure that you nonetheless have a conversational, working knowledge of us despicable pseudo-scientists, in basic areas like marginal analysis and allocative efficiency, as clearly each notion is an incongruence wrought by economists' institutional prejudice towards truth. With your indelible interpretations against our false notions of market pressure, market power, and marginal utility, I hope that you can humble yourself to correct me beyond your glancing slight of my unpretentious link, as I am always anxious to desire to understand the arguments against basic economic theory posed by those of the academic stature such as yourself.
-
I never stopped caring about the airport searches and seizures thing, I just chose to move on from that to another topic within the main topic. As far as the Patriot Act is concerned, yeah, I'm not happy about it. I think the Patriot Act is a blatant violation of both civil rights and the Constitution. But what else is there to say about it? We all know it's the truth. So that's why I'm not going on and on about it.
Actually, I sincerely doubt that entertainment is the largest, and if it is, it is because of the way things are priced. Look at movie theaters for example. Even before piracy is a huge hot button topic, prices started to rise. Whether that was because of inflation or because studios continuously increased their budgets, I don't know (though honestly, that doesn't excuse concession stands from being exorbitantly priced). I do agree that piracy does affect the workers, producers, and manufacturers of products no matter what they make, however, I sincerely doubt it affects the bottom line of the executives, because they get paid no matter what happens (which we seem to agree on), and I think that that right there has the biggest effect on jobs in that industry.
I don't honestly know where you're going with the "under-allocation" you're talking about, maybe you could explain that further.
Movies and software aside, music is a true intellectual property, and should be owned by the artists themselves (though I realize that it often times is not). And it should not be by virtue, it should be cold hard fact. I'm pretty sure most artists write their own lyrics and music themselves, though there are some who don't, and just sing or play what they're given. Still, the fact remains that the artist should have control over how their property is used.
Firstly, places like Tibet and Darfur aren't worried about piracy so much as loss of life because of rioting, protests and violence in those countries. There's really no way you can argue that point with me unless you can tell me how it directly affects their economies.
I'm also not calling lawmakers evil for wanting to help stop piracy, but instead of making trade agreements which they may not even be able to make good on, they should try enforcing laws they recently passed instead of levying new ones against people, especially ones that infringe on their privacy, as well as their dignity. Also, with that statement, I'd like to add that they really need to think about how they're going to determine what's pirated and what's not. Certainly pirated software will have its own markers, but what about music? Movies may even be easily detected as pirated, but again, what about music? Let's say I rip a CD to MP3 format. It's stored on my hard drive for personal use. Let's say I get searched, they find it, and call it illegal. Is it really illegal? Or is it personal use? How do they determine that?
Also, we're not here to talk about rent-seeking or profit-seeking. We weren't talking about the exchange of money to begin with. We were talking about methods and tasks being taken to stem piracy through law that seems to be set up outside of international law itself. A trade agreement immune from international law is dangerous, and if you really want to see what that's like, let them pass something like this, or even better still, something that directly violates peoples' rights, and then complain to me about it. Let's try to stay on topic here.
As far as the RIAA is concerned, they do not have a squeaky clean record as you may think. And also, they are, as far as I know, a not-for-profit organization that is funded directly by the four biggest record labels in the country (most likely the world). Also, as far as I know, the RIAA does not own any copyrights to intellectual property, they're just the "lynch mob" so-to-speak that's out there to stop piracy through what seems to be any means necessary, even if it violates a person's rights.
Oh yeah, and unlike farmers petitioning a government for something, the farmers won't hack your computer.
Again, to restate what I said above, they do not hold any copyrights. If they did, they'd have the right to file lawsuits left and right. They are merely the arm of the industry that seeks out the violators, and then prosecutes them on behalf of the industry.
The hell is isn't. You're way off center here. The labels exist to market, license, distribute, record and protect the music for the artist. But the artist, if he/she doesn't already, should own the rights to their music. Who the fuck are the labels to tell them what their property is, and what they deserve to get paid? Yes, the labels do a lot of work, but why shouldn't the artist get paid for what they've done? Why don't you go be an artist for a while, and see what kind of screwing you take?
Yes, please keep the oil industry argument out of this thread, not that I'm attempting to moderate that, but the fact does remain that the oil industry, SPECIFICALLY OPEC, controls the price by controlling the production which is part of supply and demand. Do not stand here and dictate to me or anyone else how their strategy is one of benevolence and that they are completely innocent of any wrong doing. You can also thank the US government for making it illegal to lease the areas on the East Coast, the Gulf of Mexico and certain parts of the western US for the drilling of oil and natural gas. Nice work, reserves aplenty, but we can't touch them. (You can also blame inflation, but that is an argument I don't even want to begin to fathom getting into.)(
So what the hell does that have to do with anything? Why should the executives make millions of dollars a year on the backs of the artists who work hard at their craft? Shouldn't it be the artists who get paid millions? Oh yeah, that's right, you're going to tell me all the fringe benefits the artists get, right? Not all of them get their own jets, or have their own entourage to follow them around. Yeah, they get SOME help, but I seriously doubt the industry pays for it all. If they did, wouldn't that cut further into the executives paycheck?
-
I disagree with this entirely. The richer you are, the less money matters to you honestly. Most people live paycheck to paycheck, so an $8,000 increase is a HUGE increase relative to a extra few hundred thousand dollars for the executive. An average American makes around $50k, so an 33% increase would entail more than 8,000, and after taxes that 50k will equate to $30-35k. After mortgages, utilities, food, gas, they are left with nothing. Probably not enough money to even save a dime, but with an extra 8,000, people can set up a college fund, not rely on credit cards (less debt, which = more money in the end), thus the 8,000 actually becomes extremely valuable to them. Debt traps the poor in the lower brackets, while debt feeds the rich, and most middle and lower class people are forced to have debt as a means of survival. Most people who are poor remain poor because of the way taxes are bracketed, while the rich has all this extra money they can invest and permanently stay rich if they are careful with their money.
So if anything, I think the executives make enough already. Most companies are faring quite well despite all this pirating, especially the music and movie industry. They are the two most pirated industries in my opinion and they are both extremely successful. Honestly if they have huge profits already, we really don't need these heavy liberty infringing laws. If they truly are suffering, then this law would be more excusable, but if this is at the expense so that executives could eat more caviar and truffles.. then it's unnecessary.
that was actually a typo and I agree with you.
If this law passes, even if you don't pirate, it will be extremely annoying. Imagine going to the airport and you bring your Ipod so you're not bored the entire flight, and you happen to be the target of a random search. They perhaps will need to confiscate your Ipod to scan it and I doubt this can be done instantly, so it will be given back to you much later on. It generates a factor of public nuisance and is an invasion of privacy, since because of this law, you will be bored to death the entire flight.I know. I said I think it is an unconstitutional
People like to show other people new music too. If you like an artist, you probably will burn them a copy of some songs and if your friend really likes them, they most likely will buy more of this artist's music later on. If this law is passed, that would be illegal, and your friend will never know or grow an appreciation for that artist. So technically, this law has the possibility of reducing the income of some major industries, because pirating actually has become sort of a trial version for music, software, etc. Some industries are actually against this proposition for that exact reason.It's already illegal, or at least arguably illegal depending on your stretch of fair use. If industries or a company wants people to sometimes be able to share, there are still other options, such as a license that allows a certain amount of sharing. The point is now that such a sharing arrangement is forced about all firms in all industries dealing in intellectual property.
Also, the Patriot Act was mentioned earlier. I believe it would have never passed if it was not for 9/11. The only reason why this huge right infringing, discriminating law sneaked through the checks and balances system is only because of paranoia. On normal grounds, it would never have passed because it violates the basic amendments, such as the right to liberty and privacy.Obviously it would have never passed if not for 9/11. It doesn't matter; the types of detainments made possible by it are so so so beyond the scope and power of this act that make it crazy to get riled up by an attempt to enforce intellectual property rights when all other areas of government involvement in today's world are somehow otherwise acceptable. It's not even clearcut that it's unconstitutional to search people as they enter the border. How many people consider it some gross misappropriation of coercive power to check luggage for anything dangerous, things you need to duty on, or controlled substances (such as meat from Europe)? Not very many. If you carried something in your luggage that could "hurt", as defined above, the value of someone's legitimately owned property, most people are ok with it being checked and confiscated if found. That's exactly what illegal music does.
Piracy does not seem to be that huge of a problem in the US, and I don't think this can generate grounds for blatant disregard of basic rights laid out by the amendment. Piracy is a lot worse in other countries, such as China. They literally sell burned copies of movies and music that they have no license to sell. The producers of those movies and music gain no revenue from those sales. That is extremely harmful and should be stopped, but in America you would be arrested the second that is done."does not seem to be that huge of a problem in the US", huh? At commercial value (of which obviously not all you would not have necessarily bought), what is the total value of all the stuff on your computer? At $1 a song, $12 a movie, and $300 each for those fancy expensive music/image editing software you cracked? If not you, college students? China is worse, yes, but one thing different is that we have control over what we're doing over there. And while you may feel much more indignation and scorn towards someone who makes money off of the work of others, to the producer the effect is identical, especially at the pennies on the dollar cost of DVD sales in most third and second world countries. Mentioned in the article would be an attempt to get second world countries, such as China, to buy into a modicum of enforcement as well.
-
I believe it is a civil rights case. Part of this Agreement is the ability of the government to force ISPs to give up confidential information to them. They can then turn around and use that information and selectively target those they find to have accessed so-deemed "illegal files". But where does it stop after that?
So they do this, and they come to your home, no warrant, just probable cause. The Fourth Amendment says that they have to have both a warrant and probable cause before they can search your home and seize property. In this case, they'd have only one piece of the puzzle. That would make it unconstitutional.
ok so you stopped caring about the airport thing even though it was your original argument.
I'm not to tell you it's constitutional, because it's not, but I'm still wandering why this is so crazy and bad and ridiculous in comparison to the standards people face off the interwebs. Going nuts over this while the Patriot Act is in place is like worrying about a a firecracker when an atom bomb is going off a mile away.
I never said I thought this was constitutional.
I don't know, because a large portion of America's strengths economically are the entertainment industry? We collectively get to buy more overseas manufactured goods without significant cost to us if first and second world countries don't allow their citizens access to music or movies unless they pay for them. In my opinion we wouldn't get too much job loss from this (although there would be a very marginal wealth), but it effects the wealth of any working or associated with the software, music, or film in a very real way. It also causes us to underallocate resources to the production of those three since the inability to secure as much income as they "should" by virtue of their ownership of intellectual property rights. That is to say, certain products in this segment of the economy simply are not produced because in our current situation it is not possible to make profit off of them. This does ultimately effect everyone in the economy- for example, the moderately talented guy flipping burgers might get signed if things change, and to attract a replacement, they may have to marginally increase wages. This won't happen everywhere, but the effect is spread over the entire economy.Honestly, "threaten U.S. jobs and economic growth"? And how are developing countries affected by this? There's so much turmoil in places like Darfur, Tibet, parts of Africa and the Middle East right now. At what point does this even factor into their economies? Some of those countries are either at unrest or at war.I don't really know how tibet and third world countries fit into all of this. They aren't even economies that are subject to this treaty. Are you calling the lawmakers evil for wanting to improve our economy even though it will have no effect on people entirely out of our international sphere who are royally screwed? There's an economic notion of profit-seeking versus rent-seeking. Profit-seeking behavior is one that increases the size of the total "pie" in order to increase one's own wealth by expanding the economy (by, for example, setting up better institutions that allow the owners of property to reap the full benefits of the property. It increases the total size and wealth of the economy in the manner I wrote out above). Rent-seeking behavior does nothing to change the size of the economy, and instead focuses on taking a bigger slice of the same pie. An example is a firm attempting to be granted monopoly privileges or other unnatural market power through the government. While the primary beneficiaries are the RIAA, that doesn't make them wrong for attempting to protect their property, any more than a group of farmers who form an organization petitioning the local government to help assist them keeping cow-tippers off their land.
What I understand to a certain extent is that what the RIAA very much looks like is rent-seeking behavior. It is statist, corporate, and powerful, and such an organization lobbying the government for aid against a decentralized, nebulous opposition. Ironically, the public is often at worse ambivalent to such actions, such as general populist support of such rent-seeking actions as tariffs and quotas, but the two are not equivalent. It's not trying to limit competition (and if you want to go on about how the RIAA screws competition by screwing independent artists, I would love to have that conversation in PPR because I have a few things to say about that), but to get the profit it deserves, and if we're speaking economically, **objectively** deserves by its property ownership. The means are at best questionable, but it is ultimately looking for equal protection under the law to owners of physical property, not to hurt people.
It's not the artists' property anymore. It's not their prerogative to support them because they paid to do whatever they want to maximize their own profit with the music. That isn't screwing anyone. It's the invisible hand.I'm sorry, but I feel that some of what was said in that article was exaggerated. I can understand the underlying affect it has on the Music Industry itself. And maybe even the impact it has on artists. And whether you believe me or not, I do believe in copyright law, I do believe in the artists, I just don't believe in the Music Industry to do what's right for the people they say they support. As far as I'm concerned, the four labels involved in the RIAA are no better than the big oil companies turning record profits at the expense of the people.It's also getting pretty annoying to hear people go on about how wrong it is for oil companies to earn record profits (part of which is explained by inflation) when the price of ONE of its inputs as a business is rising. That's excellent strategy, not manipulation. For further ranting see:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=v_XMzh2rg_s
while keeping in mind that this is a year old. I'll go on in a separate thread in PPR.
Industry execs make a lot more than you. If they raise their salary by 33% and make themselves another $750,000, it's not nearly as big of a deal as a lower class person raising his salary by 33% and getting another $8,000. But can you really blame the executive for getting pissed at the government that it can't find a solution to something that, given intellectual property, is irrevocably and incontrovertibly their own? This is their money. It shouldn't take that much to keep people from stealing from them. If you have to demand access to vague records of honest people's actions while rarely, if ever, prosecuting or even questioning them, so be it. They are being harmed irreducibly and extravagantly. We would be collectively hurt slightly if at all. Civil rights aren't even a natural (according to locke or whomever) right, just something we have because the government grants us it because we think that things will work best if we have them. In comparison, intellectual property is a negative, natural right, that theoretically should supersede civil rights. I don't think it should, and obviously you don't either, but the RIAA isn't evil for suggesting that it does.Yeah, I'll admit, I have done my own share. However, I have since reconsidered on what I was doing, and now I get my music from iTunes, as lame as that's going to sound to a lot of people. And I really don't give a damn if you poke at me for it. That's the truth.I honestly want to hear from the artists in the industry to see what their stories. I would lay odds that some of our own artists here could even share their knowledge of the "generosity" of the industry itself, and what the RIAA truly represents.
I still stand by my argument that this ATCA is going to violate rights, and is therefore unconstitutional and against the law. Do I feel that intellectual rights should be protected and respected, yes, I do. Do I feel this is the way to do it, no I don't. The way they're talking, if any one part screws it up, they could be in for stiffer trade issues. I want to know what the penalties are for failure to comply with this agreement. In the long run, all of these countries, specifically their people, could suffer. Not just in rights, but also financially. How so financially I'll let you figure out.
-
Ok, so I said more than necessary - I still think it's good for people to know causes for why nations are even discussing such a treaty, and consider it a supplement to what is, to most people here, an outrageous proposed document.
why? it's a bias. they're in it for the profit and because who they are. Just the same as the union (hopefully) supports what is good for the union worker. Arguments against the collusive effect of unions cannot be used against a bill for requiring safety standards any more than a cartel pushing for protection of property rights. Besides, the cartel at least has what it can argue to be a negative right, rather than the play to moral sensibilities that the union has.
Besides, you can only really say any of what you said if the points made by the RIAA are specious in general. However, the view of the RIAA is entirely valid - that intellectual property deserves to be preserved. Their overzealousness does not diminish intellectual property by any means. You have to explain why either A) the proposed law is overzealous in contrast to similar laws in other industries and practice,
why intellectual property doesn't make sense in general or C) our standard of civil liberties is insufficient in protection against the coercive power of government. You can't honestly make an argument in connection to what the RIAA does elsewhere before establishing that it has done anything wrong in the first place. Otherwise, the law is purely guilty by association. The RIAA presumably supports laws against murder. Does that make murder any less valid. The RIAA presumably supports laws against shoplifting. Does that make laws against shoplifting any less valid? To go off in an entirely different direction, you may want to argue against the notion that it is a logical fallacy to suggest it is incorrect to ignore who is making the argument. To a certain extent, that's the vibe I get from the post, but I don't see you making the argument of Bayes or, to pull a random economist out of my hat, Steven Landsburg. Yet, such a view is altogether disparate from that which we judge the public or prosecute criminals, in which case you have a problem with society in general, not this proposal.
-
wikipedia wrote
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
such as the other things the RIAA does
-
The RIAA is not wholly irrelevant, as such organizations have been lobbying for this type of action for a while. My despising of the RIAA comes from their actions, which clearly is aimed at protecting the business model of the big 4 labels - I worked for a quickly rising startup organization for college students that got shut down because the RIAA chose to wield big money in lawyers, and we did not have the money to pay for our lawyers; our plight would've brought us into a case decided upon by the Supreme Court, and it would've been highly unlikely the RIAA would've won, but again, the money was too much. They did not even attempt to contact us prior to try to help them with copyright infringement. With these type of decisions, it's clear that the RIAA does not care about working with companies taking legitimate stances, and instead choose to cherry pick what companies should remain according to the wishes of the big 4, and in such a situation, those companies cherrypicked are forced to bend to their wills in what amounts to blackmail.
How is that relevant to this document? Here we have a situation where according to the supposed information about this proposed treaty, ISPs can be coerced into giving customer information without a warrant. Provisions such as this fits in line with the wishes publicly expressed by the RIAA, highly suggesting a link with them and our government in spurring these discussions. It also fits in the consistent pattern of the RIAA's willingness to trample on the Constitution for the sake of copyright enforcement. In addition, the RIAA and/or the big 4 record labels have a history of pursuing questionable actions itself, such as the copyright extension of the "Save Mickey" Act, DMCA, and price fixing.
it's irrelevant because has nothing to do with whether what is going on is right or wrong. vegetarians aren't wrong because hitler was one. it doesn't matter whether the group identified with the idea in general is a saint or a sinner. Say why it's wrong here, not why the greatest proponent is a robber baron doing sketchy things.
-
First of all, look at the RIAA. Exactly what part of that organization is about the artists and protecting their property as much as it's about them making sure the labels make their money? And aren't they in hot water over their activities of late?
it's property rights. would you get pissed at a corner store that egged the police for more protection if they always got their windows broken? that is in the pursuit of profit. you can make the anti-intellectual property argument if you want against that if you want, but you aren't.
also stop throwing eggs at the RIAA. it's ad hominem and irrelevant.
yes it does, and it probably means you have too. I don't need to prove that. it's ridiculous if you insist that each and every person in this thread is by themselves very likely not to have illegal music on their computer. and yes, that means I do, depending on how you spin fair use doctrine wink wink.Also, you make a very broad assumption that everyone in this thread has somehow download illegal music. That being the case, then that would also mean YOU have done so.
the same cavity searches you can constitutionally get with a bare modicum of cause when you cross the border. this happens everyday.No, my argument here is that searching through someone's laptop or MP3 player or whatever is basically like inflicting a cavity search on them in an attempt to find drugs that aren't there. Also, I'd like you to tell me how these people are supposed to know what songs were bought on iTunes and what songs are illegal.The logistics of figuring out what is illegal don't make much to me either, but however they come up with enforcement is a different area of debate. The point here is the principle; the specifics are immaterial.
I have mp3s like that too. I don't know how they're going to be able to differentiate, but that is a separate point to argueWhat if I have music that I ripped from one of the CDs I have that I bought at Best Buy or FYE or whatever? Are those copyright infringement? That's fair use, is it not?
why? at least I'm have no pretenses regarding my pretentiousness, unlike you apparently. it's also ironic for you to get mad at me for being on "hat high horse that lets you think you know everything, or know what everyone does or does not do, and come back to reality." when you assert that I'm "starting to remind [you] of someone."You have this habit of coming into a thread and attempting to sound all high and might, as if you know something, and you're starting to remind me of someone. You really need to get off that high horse that lets you think you know everything, or know what everyone does or does not do, and come back to reality.
I don't need to. It's unlikely that I could prove it even if I tried, but of the members who are active on this forum, what percentage have illegal music? to rephrase, what percentage of the general 15-30 YO population has a single illegal music file? something to the effect of 97%? I can't think of a single person I know in that age range who doesn't. Given who we are, our general computer savvy, and what are interests are, the group of people in this thread probably have a higher likelihood than that. Let alone the self-selecting bias that people who would enter this thread are probably pissed off at the RIAA etc in general, which makes the likelihood even higher.And when you can actually confirm for a fact, FOR A FACT, that everyone in this thread has done something illegal, you let me know, and maybe then I'll concede your point. But it's not likely.
I alluded to this. I agree with you in saying that it's unconstitutional, just that it's not out of place given the current political structure. If they can ctrl+f for a filename they know is specific to an illegal file, or can find the address of someone who regularly visits limewire by no more intrusive means than requesting a list from a company, we're getting close, if not at, some semblance of probative benefit, which in a theoretical construct such as this one, does not necessarily require a warrant. Remember, civil rights are created to protect the innocent, not the guilty, and I cannot associate any cost whatsoever to the consumer with the innocent being listed along with the guilty when the government is searching for very specific signs. The greatest cost I see is to large ISPs, which will lose business to bootleg ones, but I don't think that's what you care about really.So, explain to me how this wouldn't lead to home searches. Because in truth, if they go through the records from the ISP and find discrepencies, the first thing they're going to do is search your home because they'll have everything from your name and address to your social security number. Tell me this is not a violation of the search and seizure annotation from the Fourth Amendment. They need probable clause, yes, and they basically have it at this point, what they don't have is the warrant. And that's the part that violates the Fourth Amendment, and makes the entire trade agreement ILLEGAL.
Again with mud throwing and guilty by association.Oh, and in case you haven't been paying attention, the last eight years of the current Administration have not exactly been kind to the poor and middle-class of this country, I don't care how much the politicians stretch the truth on that, "the proof is in the pudding" as some wise person once said.You're also suggesting that screwing copyright law hurts the poor and middle class, which kinda shows your hand. You don't really believe in copyright law. Just say that.
-
Even so, this is how it starts. First "illegal" materials found either on DVDs or in laptops/mp3 players/etc... Then it goes from there and grows into "hey, we're doing this at airports and borders, let's start doing this in our own backyards." And then it really becomes the issue of civil rights and privacy vs. big government checking up on its own citizens when it could be out hunting down the real criminals either on the streets of America, or over seas as they're so apt to do these days.
I strongly disagree. I'm not endorsing this, but random searches at the border are pretty common practice. Have you ever left the country, had your bags searched, and got felt up? You can make a constitutional argument, but it's both hardly clear cut and contradicts what we find acceptable elsewhere.
When you get down to it, it's not really very extreme, in contrast to the patriot act in security issues and due diligence in civil cases. let's be real here; no one would be pissed off about this if it weren't for the fact that every single person posting in this thread has illegal music on his computer. It's not a civil rights issue. I find it more analogous to a bunch of drug dealers pissed off that they use dogs to find cocaine at airports. I don't believe drugs should be illegal so don't be offended by that.
If you want to make anti-intellectual property arguments, fine, but given that record companies obviously believe in the integrity of intellectual property, can you really blame them for pressuring the government to find a way to enforce their rights?
-
Has anyone else heard it? I got around to buying it Saturday and it's pretty delicious, favorite track being The Rip. The synth stuff has really mature from the subtle Dummy and the heavy handed self-titled second album.
the neat vocal electronic trick in the rip and the cut-off ending in silence are awesome because they are ridiculously pretentious.
-
nope
I've restarted my computer four times and it's still been doing this.
We Started Nothing
in General Discussion
Posted
These nation of britainsure can make music well. Along with the rest of America, I heard The Ting Tings first in the ultra-catchy Shut up and Let Me Go on an iTunes commercial. I just got a hold of their album, which recently hit the states, and I am convinced they are the best thing since sliced bread despite middling reviews. Other than the singles, "We Walk" is my favorite of the album. The repetition, catchy-ness, and unapologetic, upfront mixing of their tracks reminds me of Daft Punk in several ways, only with an Indie twist.