zircon

Note that I'm not defending all of the actions of the RIAA, or saying that they're right about everything they do. I'm simply on the same side as them when it comes to the belief that people who infringe on copyright - breaking the law - should be punished. If we can't go after individual people, then we need to go after the people that facilitate the infringement. I keep saying this over and over again. The only argument people have really given me in response to this is that it's too hard to keep up, but I think I've already countered that.

I have to agree that it's kind of frightening how much time people spend on social networking sites. Most classes I'm in, half the class is staring at Facebook or MySpace. That's a conservative estimate, too. Since I may or may not have been an inspiration for your rant, I figured I might as well say that I'm guilty of both idling and being unresponsive. Sometimes, there's an issue of just having a mental block. For example, I usually have about 10 things that I have to be doing at any given time. People I need to be contacting, long emails that need to be read and responded to, and so forth. Sometimes, I don't even want to open an unread message because I know if I do I'll get sucked in and have to add another thing to my neverending pile. This is, of course, outside of normal work + school. Not really an excuse, I know, but this is why some people won't even open a new email. That's the appeal of so much on the Internet. You can screw around for a few hours and get nothing done, and it's easy. It's harder to spend 30 minutes addressing, for lack of a better phrase, serious business...

But that isn't relevant to the discussion. We don't base our justice system on the guilt of the victim. If a convicted rapist is murdered, we don't give the murderer a pat on the back. We send them to jail, probably for a very long time. In other words, even if the RIAA is guilty of being sleazy, that shouldn't cloud our judgment with regards to people that are still breaking the law by infringing on copyright or facilitating that infringement. We still need to do something about them. I believe the best way to do this is regulating any central entities that facilitate infringement, such as TPB. So I applaud Sweden.

Who is suggesting altering the law to "work against the general populace"? Not me. My suggestion was to mandate that BitTorrent trackers comply with requests to take down copyrighted material, if the copyright owner makes the request. Simple as that. How is this negatively affecting the consumer at all? If creators want to distribute their stuff for free, fine. No problem. But if it's being distributed illegally, the people facilitating that (trackers) need to stop tracking those torrents. That would be a good start, no? There has already been a massive revolution in both. There are a million and one ways to get music now - you can buy single tracks, DRM-free, for cheaper than ever before. You can get unlimited subscriptions to massive catalogues. You can stream stuff all day and all night for free on sites like Pandora or Grooveshark. I could go on and on. Why do discussions of piracy always end up blaming the VICTIMS - copyright holders? It's simply not relevant. The entertainment industries have changed and will continue to change. The free market will make sure of that. When digital distribution became possible, the major record labels didn't run with the ball, and Steve Jobs did, and now Jobs is raking in the cash. Great! Now what about all the people BREAKING THE LAW? We need to talk about how to deal with them. It has already been established that it's very hard to go after individual users, due to the nature of the Internet as it stands now. However, entities like The Pirate Bay, can and should be regulated.

So your "solution" is to just give up - don't bother trying to enforce laws if the technology moves past current legislation. Let people break the law, or hell, just throw out the law! Wow! Why didn't I think of that? Why don't we just apply that attitude to all computer crimes? Identity theft often uses very new technology. Legislation can't keep up. Let's just give up now and let "deserving people" make their money from this "new situation". Give me a break. Computers and the internet NEED to be regulated. It's hard, but not impossible. Give up this fight and we hand over a free pass to ALL the criminals saying "Sorry, we can't keep up. You win."

Prophet I might take you up on your offer of.. uh.. you calling kittykar. I've been watching videos and the fine tinkering skills involved here are not what I want to be doing

This isn't quite correct... read the Wikipedia article on the history of copyright. While that technical term hasn't existed since antiquity: etc. So even though composers were paid by patrons (commissions), the thought of 'ownership' was quite prevalent. Even people back then realized the value of a piece of music. Anyway, it's true that an abundance of performers, producers and composers makes the industry for music gear and education better. Still, these are very different fields than the actual creation of art. It's like saying painters can go and become paintbrush makers. Does that really make sense?

Most of our society is "artificial". Where does my yard stop and yours begin? That's artificial. Not a good argument... we force artificial distinctions on things all the time. I don't believe that is an ideal situation. Again, if you look at all of the artists and musicians considered to be the greatest (by critics, academics, and the general public alike), these people weren't doing it for free. Anyone can make "good" music these days, largely because technology has made it easy. But GREAT music? Masterpieces? Without any sort of financial reward, artists will be forced to only make music in their spare time, and I simply have to disagree that this is a good thing at all. The romanticized view is that all musicians simply make music because they love doing it, and there is some truth to that, but I don't think it is any coincidence that all the great artists throughout history were full-timers. Well, it's not that music didn't have commercial value per se, it's that music played a different role in many cultures (and still does) outside of the Western world that has nothing to do with entertainment. That's really the distinction. If you look at music as necessary to a rite of passage, or something to perform before a hunt to give you good luck, of course there's no monetary "value" attached. However, music has had a commercial value since the baroque era and even some time before that, as the Western world developed to the point where music could BECOME a luxury.

Wow... that is way more complicated than I thought. Now I see what you mean, and now I'm not sure I want to do it. If only someone was local, I'd pay 'em $50 in a heartbeat to just open the thing up for me.

phill... I'm not sure what you recommend instead. Look, guys, all I'm trying to do is just fix my Xbox. Am I missing something? It seems like I am.

I'm not taking anything personally at all, don't worry. I do understand the natural decine in demand because of the proliferation of music technology, but at the same time, piracy has had a lot to do with it too. The start of the hemorraghing of money in the recording industry coincided exactly with Napster coming into popularity... I don't think the death of copyright is inevitable, though. We just need to be both smart and aggressive about reacting to new technologies that could facilitate infringement. ie. BitTorrent is fine, but trackers need to comply with legal notices/subpoenas. If Darknets are becoming an issue then we need to rethink the infrastructure that makes them possible. The Internet isn't some mystical evolution of humanity. It's just a bunch of protocols run on giant server farms, facilitated by internet service providers. It can, and probably should, be changed over time. I think everyone should be worried about this, and I don't understand why no one is (well, except a few people.) I know art isn't a necessity, but I mean, does ANYBODY really think it would be preferable to live in a world where John Williams has to flip burgers from 9-5 before composing anything? Is that really going to make for better art?

Why is it retarded? What are my other options? I'm not paying $100 and waiting 6 weeks for a repair.

Yeah, I'm sure he does know more, but I PMed him a week ago with no response. I do plan on picking up Arctic Silver 5. Anything I should know for actually applying the stuff and removing the current heatsinks? Also, the 360 is over a year old, so it didn't lose the 3 year warranty (although I guess THAT'S gone now, not that I care) but it lost the one I care about, which fixes issues like THIS.

It's one thing for an artist that has had millions of dollars poured into him to "experiment". It's another thing for everyone else, ie. the other 99.999% of artists. I'm here in the trenches and I'm telling you for a fact that while it's much easier to be a musician today than it was before, the massive devaluation of music is REALLY killing the potential to make any real income from the sale of recorded music, and nothing is filling the gap. Even people that do write music on commission are finding it much harder to get paid - rates have gone way DOWN, not up. So... I think the options are this. Creators can roll over, let their work get devalued, and have the industry pretty much fall apart, or we can try to fight for what's legitimately ours (copyright.)

First of all, the warranty had already expired. Second of all, I tried the solutions you suggested already. Third, their tech support said I would have to pay over $100 and wait 6+ weeks for a repair. I'd rather say 'screw it' and try to fix it myself, since the warranty is gone anyway.

Laws HAVE to change to match technology. If people just gave up every time a new technology came around, we wouldn't have a functioning legal system. We'll have to address that in whatever way we can. There is no monetary value to my work unless I can sell copies of it, or unless I'm specifically commissioned to do things. The latter, however, is far less common than the former. So basically, you're looking at artists being unable to recoup costs and make money, thus they are forced to make their money elsewhere, and can't spend as much time on their art. Sounds pretty bad. None of that is going to work. Artists are going to have to do other things full time to make money, and the total output of music will be worse for it. If the violation of copyright is unenforceable then copyright itself is moot, so...

My 360 has two red rings on the left quadrant right now. I can only assume this is overheating, based on what MS has on their site. This is happening for no good reason (my Xbox hasn't moved in months, nothing wrong with ventilation or the room) so I think the problem must be hardware related. I've mostly disassembled the Xbox and I'm going to try and reseat the processor with new thermal paste. Am I doing the wrong thing here, or is this the only way to fix such a problem? The fans sound like they're working just fine, so...

I'm saying that the law can and should be changed. That's how progress is made, we change laws and set court precedent. I would suggest that each country adopt laws like the ones I suggest and/or enter into an international treaty like the Berne Convention, which is currently the de facto international standard for intellectual property. Not that hard to do. I'm defending intellectual property, simple as that. I don't really care who agrees with me or doesn't agree. If a murderer says it is wrong to murder, that doesn't diminish the rightness or wrongness of his point, so it shouldn't matter to you either who agrees or disagrees with me.

Well, I agree that the cost issue is definitely significant. But that's why I think the enforcement should be more directed at the people who facilitate the illegal traffic knowingly than the individual users. For example, if you're driving someone around town... that's not a crime. If they just committed a bank robbery, and you know they did, then that IS a crime (you're an accomplice.) ISPs do not allow illegal activity over their lines... Verizon won't protect you if you're trading kiddy porn. Trackers need to legally have that same kind of responsibility.

I don't think anyone is arguing against torrents. This trial wasn't about that at ALL. It's just a matter of rights, not technology. Nobody NEEDS the latest Britney Spears song. There are tons of options that are free and legal. What gives you the right to the creation of somebody else? Can anybody legitimately answer that question? If I invest $15,000 in a home studio and spend years learning how to write and produce music, why should you have free access to what I create...? That's what this all boils down to. Anso and I had a long discussion about this in the chat the other day. It seems like everyone would be happy if there were simply more stringent laws on BitTorrent trackers. For example, a tracker that receives requests to take down illegal torrents must comply or face legal action. I think this is quite fair - the tracker can still function and provide legal materials, and artists/creators can always intentionally forego their rights (I've done this several times), but if people don't want to be a part of the new tech, they don't have to be. Unless you believe in getting rid of copyright altogether, you need a means of enforcing it. It's too hard to go after individual users. With technologies like VPN, as well as the imprecision of IPs (proxies etc.) and the massive legal hurdles in doing subpoenas to record labels, it's just not realistic to go after individual users. We've seen that fail. So, if we are to even attempt to enforce copyright, we need to focus our attention on entities like TPB. No, NOT just shut them down blindly, but make sure that they comply with requests to take down illegal materials. This might require new legislation, but I believe it would be worth it.

The RIAA has absolutely nothing to do with this trial. The Swedish government does. A better hypothetical than yours would be if half of UPS' business was sending out unreleased CDs illegally and they were proud of this fact. It's all a matter of intent and scope.

Nice logic, sir.

These guys were never on trial before for the same charges, Gario.

Good riddance.

TWETY? The World Ends The You?