OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion

JayBdey · #1 December 3rd, 2003, 01:36 AM

Given the choice of paying for a song and the artist getting a little but the label taking most of it, and not paying at all and helping to form a new system were the artist gets ALL the money, I'm going to pick that.

If we stop paying NOW, in the future artists will be getting all (or most of) the money.

Songs could be sold for $.25 cents a piece and the artist would be making more than they do now. The consumer pays less, the artist gets more.

I can't find a downside to that. The only people that loose are the labels and the RIAA, and they deserve it.

[ December 02, 2003, 23:37: Message edited by: JayBdey ]

Fyron · #2 December 3rd, 2003, 01:38 AM

If you object to the current model, then stealing is no way to protest. Do not acquire their music at all. Don't buy it. But don't steal it either. Stealing it just makes you a petty crook and destroys any validity you might have had otherwise with your complaints.

[ December 02, 2003, 23:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

PvK · #3 December 3rd, 2003, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
...That is some rather creative reading on your part... let me repeat myself: I have never had the search feature fail to find a file that I know is there. So, I know where the file is, I run the search, it always finds it.

So it's not frequent that it fails, or maybe it even never fails when doing the sorts of searches that you do. May your luck hold out.

Quote:

quote:
...

Ok... this is just *****ing. It is not a productive complaint at all. Of course they had to pick how the OS works! That is how you design software. So you prefer the opposite sort order. Big deal. They decided to go the other way by default. That is not in any way a bug, and can not in any reasonable way be construed as a bug, UNLESS it is marketed to sort in the opposite order that it does by default. Otherwise, you have to grounds for complaint here.

I never said it was a bug. Again, the topic I was responding to was a question about what I personally didn't like. It annoys me to change the sort order and not offer any option to use the old (sensible) sort order. Why would I want to see the oldest files by default?

Quote:

...

quote:
Media cartels do very little, if any, hard creative work outside of cunning new legal contracts to stiff the actual creators.

Media cartels have nothing to do with the concept of being compensated for your work PvK... whether such alleged cartels are around or not has no bearing on whether people should receive compensation for their work if they so choose.

They do have something "to do with the concept of being compensated for your work" when the worker and the person demanding compensation are two different parties, and when the demander is a megacorp demanding that everyone pay them as often as they can get away with, for as long as they can get away with, when it's utterly impractical and counterproductive to assert such rights in the face of the realities of broadcast media and ubiquitous technology such as computers on a worldwide network.

Quote:

quote:
Data isn't being stolen from creators. The file sharing issue involves creators who have sold their rights for very little to megacorps, and the megacorps are crying because their old distribution and sales model is becoming obsolete. You know, the one with which they've been making themselves obscenely rich for decades (while exploiting the actual creators).

Either way, the shared files are still being stolen. It does not matter who has the rights to it, as long as it is not released to the public domain, downloading such files is still stealing them. That, and there are plenty of creators that are not part of megacorps that are being stolen from in the file sharing issue as well.

I do not agree. Sharing ideas is not stealing, even if you heard the idea from someone else, as long as you don't claim the idea was thought up by you. Creative people should be rewarded for sharing their ideas, art, music (etc), in the first place, and if they can think of reasonable and practical ways to limit the way they share their work with others so as to make more money from them, fine. However, I believe that in general it should be the resonsibility of the vendor (not the government) to maintain control of their own media.

With media such as pop music, the crap is broadcast via radio throughout the planet, including into private houses, and it is played in public places. In neither case is there a contract between the sender and receiver. Pop music is practically inescapable - we're bombarded with it and have little choice about it. Reception and recording devices are not illegal to own and use (yet?). The original creator has already received their miniscule fraction of a percent. It's silly to say someone can't tape a broadcast and replay it. Illegal to fast forward past ads? BS! When does it ever become something that the public is allowed to share? Never?

PvK

JayBdey · #4 December 3rd, 2003, 01:50 AM

The way it sorts files is fine.

I think they way this board works is screwy, it just seems unnatural to have the newest post at the top. Everyone may not like that feature but that doesn't make wrong. You have to choose one way to do things, and someone will complain that the way you chose isn't their preference.

Fyron · #5 December 3rd, 2003, 01:52 AM

Quote:

They do have something "to do with the concept of being compensated for your work" when the worker and the person demanding compensation are two different parties, and when the demander is a megacorp demanding that everyone pay them as often as they can get away with, for as long as they can get away with, when it's utterly impractical and counterproductive to assert such rights in the face of the realities of broadcast media and ubiquitous technology such as computers on a worldwide network.

Either way, you still have no right to their work, unless they give you that right, either through free distribution or a legal license to possess and use it.

Quote:

I do not agree. Sharing ideas is not stealing, even if you heard the idea from someone else, as long as you don't claim the idea was thought up by you. Creative people should be rewarded for sharing their ideas, art, music (etc), in the first place, and if they can think of reasonable and practical ways to limit the way they share their work with others so as to make more money from them, fine. However, I believe that in general it should be the resonsibility of the vendor (not the government) to maintain control of their own media.

Sharing ideas is not stealing, no. Sharing physical copies of a very specific set of "ideas" (such as a song) that you have no right to share is stealing, however. Even downloading a song is stealing, as it is still a physical copy of the song (electrons and circuits are quite physical).

Where the heck did the government come into this? It has always been the responsibilty of the vendor to maintain control! The only role the government plays is to provide courst in which the vendor can have a legal means to strike back at those that would wrongfully steal their product (rather than doing something nasty like breaking their legs or some such

).

Quote:

With media such as pop music, the crap is broadcast via radio throughout the planet, including into private houses, and it is played in public places. In neither case is there a contract between the sender and receiver.

Sure there is. There is a contract between the owner of the music and the person that is playing it over the radio.

Quote:

Reception and recording devices are not illegal to own and use (yet?). The original creator has already received their miniscule fraction of a percent. It's silly to say someone can't tape a broadcast and replay it.

It is actually quite illegal to record anything off of the radio.

Has been for many decades in the US at least.

Quote:

Illegal to fast forward past ads? BS!

Again, you have absolutely no right to watch whatever program it is. It is a privelege granted to you by the broadcasting networks.

Quote:

When does it ever become something that the public is allowed to share? Never?

When it is released into public domain by the owner, or when enough time for the copyright to expire has passed.

Fyron · #6 December 3rd, 2003, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JayBdey:
I think they way this board works is screwy, it just seems unnatural to have the newest post at the top. Everyone may not like that feature but that doesn't make wrong. You have to choose one way to do things, and someone will complain that the way you chose isn't their preference.

Exactly. The option to choose how to sort is always a good thing to have though... too bad Shrapnel gives browsers no option.

evader · #7 December 3rd, 2003, 02:34 AM

I like Xp I use it at home and work. Speaking strictly from a network administrator point of view I like xp. Less having to work around some of the securtity issues in 2000

Also Xp solved the NT bug.

Granted it now has and XP bug now but that is olay only hit that once or twice