backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 53 comment(s) - last by Rav3n.. on Nov 29 at 8:52 AM
Candidates received a lopsided questionnaire of which the results will be posted publicly

This week, 17 presidential candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties will receive a brief letter and questionnaire from the Copyright Alliance, probing them on their efforts to “maintain meaningful copyright protection.”

 “On behalf of the 11 million Americans employed in the creative industries,” writes Creative Alliance Executive Director Patrick Ross, “I am presenting you with a questionnaire allowing you to let the creative community know of your commitment to copyright and artists’ rights.” The letter (PDF) goes on to list the Alliance’s 44 member companies, which include the MPAA, NBC Universal, the NFL, CBS, Microsoft, Disney, and numerous artists’ guilds and trade groups.

The letter’s language is restrictive and describes the Alliance’s vision of a grim future, calling the United States' creative output as a key topic “at stake” in the 2008 elections: “It is critical not only for members of the creative community but also for the U.S. economy to ensure that copyrights are respected and piracy is reduced. We are asking you to let us know what you would do to help preserve one of America’s greatest strengths, its creative community.”

Attached to the letter are five questions (PDF), one for each letter of the Copyright Alliance’s IDEAS Economy acronym (Innovation, Digital Marketplace, Enforcement, American Competitiveness, and [Free] Speech). “How would you promote the progress of science and creativity, as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution,” asks one question, “by upholding and strengthening copyright law and preventing its diminishment?”

Under a section titled Digital Marketplace, candidates are asked how they feel “the rights that have served our economy and spurred creativity in the physical world should apply in the digital world?”

“The U.S. economy today is driven by ideas, whether they be born of research (sic), technological innovation, the stroke of a pen, or strum of a guitar,” says Ross, “This Ideas Economy is the backbone of job creation … he copyright industries employ more than 11 million Americans and we want to call attention to the voices of these creators.”

With piracy around the globe seemingly undeterred by the content industry’s expensive, money-losing legal efforts, the organizations representing artists – the majority of whose creations will be computerized and illegally copied – are ramping up the pressure in an attempt to enforce their will.

Charged from recent legal victories, so-called Big Content has turned its attention to the 2008 elections, which it seems to consider the next major battlefield in its ongoing war on piracy.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Not gonna stop them.
By NullSubroutine on 11/24/2007 12:25:13 AM , Rating: 5
These companies are not going to stop their jihad of lawsuits, lobbying of law makers, or pressuring hardware manufacturers. Those who lead these companies are not average normal people, they are corporate executives that know that money is power and more power gives them more money.

They will do whatever they can to maintain their status quo on the 'creative industry'. They will use typical monolopistic business practices to push out any company that tries to run business outside of their paradigm. They will use their power to influence how copyright law is written so that it does not "protect" artists and creative people, but prevent anyone from challenging the media conglomormate.

These executives believe they have a right to every consumer's dollar and they will do nothing to short of giving the consumer what it actually wants. Easy, simple, access to media from the artists not companies.

The music business was built on a very simple concept. Find a poor musician, flash money at them, steal the rights to their music, spend tons of money in marketing and hype, sell the 'new' artist they found/created...PROFIT!

This concept is no longer valid. Besides American Idol music, and media in general can adverstise itself. I mean, its the digital age, with social networking sites, peer to peer file transfers, and viral you tube videos the media sells itself. But instead of trying to figure out a way to change the business to the new model society had shaped into, these companies and their leaders are trying to keep us in the radio age.




RE: Not gonna stop them.
By wordsworm on 11/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Not gonna stop them.
By sinful on 11/24/2007 6:13:25 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
How does the music industry differ from this business model?


"Big Content" has gone from having (reasonable) protections to having ridiculous protections, and now they're asking for insane protections regarding their copyrights.

*THAT'S* the big difference.

In other words, there doesn't seem to be any sort of end point in which 'Big Content' will be satisfied with the protections given to them - they will forever ask for more, to the detriment of innovation, consumers, and the economy.

PS: Be sure to delete the cached copy of dailytech's website from your internet browser. You know, in some industries, that would be called "stealing a copy"....
=P


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Myg on 11/24/2007 6:13:39 AM , Rating: 1
Wordsworm, if your annoyance is with the medical industry, address it in an article which is relevant. If we were to dig up all the grieviances of all the possible ways people are taking advantage of others, there would be no point of having a discussion on this particular topic at all (DailyTech might as well remove the comments section in that case).

Piracy, in essence is stealing. We (people who downloaded music/videos/etc..) have stolen from them, so we have created/instigated a division between us and them as human beings.

We broke an unspoken promise to act responsibly and to show respect. They did not forgive us (nor ask for an apology, which they should of), and are doing the same; in turn (wether they are aware of it or not).

So, we are currently in a vicious cycle of stealing their music, and them trying to steal our rights/freedoms (see DRM).

A war is currently being waged between the pirates and the companies, what side will you be on? It doesnt matter who wins, because, in the end, despite all fanfare or self-indulgent glory and history writing, we will all lose something (Dignity and self-respect to the pirates, fun and enjoyment to the copyright alliance)

This is why morality is so important in society: ("thou shalt not steal" (pirates; yarrr, you scurvy sea dogs) "Love thy neighbour" - (copyright alliance; please stop wasting money on frivilous persuits and grow up).

Someone has to stop this sillyness, either the companies have to approach their piracy foes with an open hand to take advantage of their infrastructure/technology, or the pirates have to offer their services to them with responsibility and cooperation.

Either way, the one who will humble himself before the other, surely will be remembered by our history books as the honourable and mature one.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By NullSubroutine on 11/24/2007 8:27:46 AM , Rating: 4
Priacy is not stealing. Stealing is built on the premise that what is taken is tangible property and upon theft is no longer availble to property owner.

When you copy a song, it is the equivilent you speaking to someone, and saying you have the rights to what you say. That you own the words that you have spoken and noone can ever repeat them without paying you a fee.

Many people do not recognize the assertion that something intangible is property.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Christopher1 on 11/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Not gonna stop them.
By tmouse on 11/26/2007 8:22:48 AM , Rating: 2
As long as you and her do not listen to the same song at the same time. I see stealing a song as a theft of service rather than a theft of real property. You pay for the chance to be entertained "on demand" by the purchase. Would you consider it fair to reimburse a friend half of their ticket if they opened a back door to let you into a concert? You can listen to SOME music fro free on the radio but that is not really free. You get subjected to ads and you do not hear what you want when you want (even on "request shows" there is only a chance to get your request and it cues when they can get to it. I do believe these groups want to take all of our rights and would love to see "fair use" finally codified in law rather than just being a lose interpretation which these groups are eroding. I also think these companies should not receive all rights to a work they publish just first publication rights. You do not have the right to set your price on another’s work, just the right to either pay the requested price or not, if people stuck to their guns the prices would drop. Theft is still theft be it property or service.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Rav3n on 11/25/2007 6:57:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Stealing is built on the premise that what is taken is tangible property and upon theft is no longer availble to property owner.


Why are we fooling ourselves into trying to narrow the definition down to "property?" What if you stole my heart? Or an actor stole a show? Or if I stole a peak through your open window?

What we really have to assess is the notion of stealing an idea. And ideas, like the other examples, are neither physical property, nor do they fit your relatively narrow definition of intangible property.

Proper laws have to address proper philosophy. While I am not about to address the underpinnings of a more comprehensive philosophy in my DailyTech post here, it certainly is one of the root issues with copyright laws in the digital age.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By mindless1 on 11/26/2007 11:25:11 AM , Rating: 2
It is not "we" who are fooling ourselves.

It's not stealing and never will be.
Yes, it's illegal. So are many acts which also can't be randomly called stealing. Stealing is a term used by simpletons who can't appreciate there is a substantial difference in every possible way.

A metaphor about stealing one's heart is obviously inapplicable and in so writing it you had already conceded you were wrong though lack of evidence, so why did you keep writing?


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Rav3n on 11/29/2007 8:52:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A metaphor about stealing one's heart is obviously inapplicable


Hmm... maybe I missed how it was "obviously inapplicable."

Please write me about it.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By ZmaxDP on 11/26/2007 10:24:16 AM , Rating: 3
That was a horrible analogy.

The music industry is not asking that you don't sing the songs yourself, or play them with your own instruments, but that you don't copy (record) someone else's voice and instrumentation and play it without paying for it. Last I checked it is equally illegal to record someone's spoken conversation without their permission/knowledge as it is to copy a recorded song without the artist's or studio's consent.

Also, stealing isn't based on the premise that what is taken is "tangible property" but on the premise that what is taken is simply property and therefore owned by someone other than the thief. Intangible isn't even remotely related to the definition of stealing except in your book.

Besides, music isn't "intangible" any more than a book, or a patented way of assembling a microprocessor. When the idea was originated, all these examples were "intangible." Then, through a process of recording these ideas onto paper (manuscripts, sheet music, patent applications) or other mediums (vinyl records, CD's, Digital files that take up real space on your hard drive), they become tangible.

I think "tangible" is something a lot of people throw around in the digital age willy nilly as a means to an end. Tangible means (basically) something you can touch. Guess what, you can touch a CD, a record, sheet music, and a hard drive. Tangible does not intentionally exclude things too small to touch with your fingers (electrons). It is meant to mean something with a physical presence. Conveniently, when the word was coined (created) people weren't aware that there were things so tiny they couldn't physically perceive them, hence the common definition of the word. Point being, those tiny bits of data stored on your hard drive are every bit as "tangible" as a grand piano. So, stop using the "intangible" nature of music to excuse your theft...

The beauty of the creative arts is that the idea behind the tangible evidence of said idea is indeed "intangible" and theoretically exists outside of any physical representation including the artist's own mind. However, I've never met anyone capable of "copying" this intangible stuff either. It's only the tangible evidence of that idea that ever gets copied. Interestingly, it's this tangible evidence that copyrights apply to. Which, back to music, is why copying a song recording without having paid for it is stealing, while listening to the song on a radio or podcast or live or from a CD you've bought and then teaching yourself how to play it (or buying the sheet music) and then playing it yourself isn't.

So let's drop the intangible defense...

You may not recognize that something "intangible" can be property and thus belong to someone. If you honestly believe this, then you and I will have to agree to disagree.

However, most modern societies are built upon the premise that those who create ideas are the owners of those ideas. No system is perfect, and in many cases the wrong people get credit, but despite these screw-ups this premise persists. Why? To encourage the sharing of creativity, and it's results. Without the "ownership" of "intangible" ideas, the entire creative system breaks down. Take a close look at the few societies that discredit the ownership of such intangibles by individuals (Stalinist Russia, North Korea, etc...) and you'll find that instead the state owns these ideas. They still implicitly accept that ownership of ideas is important, but reject the rights of the individual to that ownership. If you look closely at the intellectual property that was developed in these kind of societies, you'll notice that most of the creativity was expended in areas that the governments did not have an interest in. The government didn't bother to take ownership of those ideas. In areas deemed important, creativity and advancement slowed down dramatically. Not entirely, but any systematic decrease in creativity can have startling economic effects on the affected industry (music or otherwise). Some economists contribute the fall of most communist states to this one factor alone. Decrease in creativity leads to a decrease in productivity relative to other states leading to an eventual economic collapse. Not such a pretty picture. In fact, I can't think of a single government or society that didn't place value on intangible ideas. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'd be very interested in a society that doesn't. It would make for a fantastic research assignment.

When you say many people don't recognize the assertion that something intangible can't be property, I'm not clear who this large group of people are (outside of content pirates). Heck, even most of the content pirates I know are quite protective of their own intellectual property, they just haven't figured out how to respect other people's IP. I only know one person who truly buys into your premise, and he'll admit that the reason he doesn't support ownership of such intangible things is because he is incredibly uncreative himself. The guy has a photographic memory, but lacks almost any shred of creativity. As such, IP is of little use to him. Like I said, he'll admit it freely.

I don't like invasive DRM, copy restrictions on already purchased content, or any of the other "new" measures the RIAA or MPAA is trying to enforce any more than you do. You can argue against those policies using any number of legal precedents (fair use, etc...) or constitutional rights. Your argument, however, is just so totally a 180 from all these precedents and from almost the entire societal history of the human race that it really blows my mind. It just seems strange to me that given all the other possible ways of arguing against it, you've picked this one. It's the A-bomb of arguments against the creative arts. It's also the one least likely to succeed. Then again, if what you're shooting for is the freedom to copy anything and everything as you wish, then it's the only one that will get you what you want. So, good luck with that. I just hope it never happens...


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/24/2007 10:53:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wordsworm, if your annoyance is with the medical industry, address it in an article which is relevant. If we were to dig up all the grieviances of all the possible ways people are taking advantage of others, there would be no point of having a discussion on this particular topic at all (DailyTech might as well remove the comments section in that case).

Wordsworm brings up some interesting points. They may not be entirely on topic, but he does it tactfully and in an informed manner.

It's OK to be a little off topic :)


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By wordsworm on 11/24/2007 11:51:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wordsworm, if your annoyance is with the medical industry, address it in an article which is relevant. If we were to dig up all the grieviances of all the possible ways people are taking advantage of others, there would be no point of having a discussion on this particular topic at all
You seem to miss the parallel. I do have a grievance with the medical community, it's true. My point is simple: there's big money in protecting its interests, and most people seem to be content with that, and with protecting the interests of patent holders such as Intel or Microsoft, yet seem to care not one whit about the interest of the film and music industries. The real issue of this article is how the culture, and for matters of discussion at DT, is the argument over whether or not artists should have the right to protect their interests. I have read some suggest that artists should consider recorded albums as little more than an ad for a concert. These people have no perspective. They just want to be entertained for free. I vaguely recall someone complaining that radio stations that are being required are having to pay royalties - their argument being that these stations have to pay for bandwidth and that should be enough. I'm trying to show that the value attributed to physical goods. If physical goods could be copied by anyone with a computer, then it would open a whole new world of piracy, with everyone's livelihood being threatened. Of course, then everyone would staunchly defend their intellectual property. What is a patent, really, other than an intellectual property? What is a scientific invention if not an act of creation? Both scientists and artists need to have their work protected that it may bring value to their work and effort.

In most cases, the only people who really care about morality are the people held accountable for it. Those who do pirate work or willfully download pirated work are criminals who need to be corrected. Due to the extent of this infraction, the music and film industry have become draconian to protect its interests.

The previous post suggested that people shouldn't be getting rich off of artists. I countered that people shouldn't be getting rich off of sick and dying people. I made the comparison because most people respect doctors as demigods, just as the disparage entertainment execs. In the area of morality, I think that what I'm trying to do is put a little perspective on the values of popular culture.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By mindless1 on 11/26/2007 11:39:15 AM , Rating: 2
"If physical goods could be copied by anyone with a computer, then it would open a whole new world of piracy, with everyone's livelihood being threatened."

No, it would open a whole new nirvana where people aren't enslaved.

This is where your thinking is wrong. People are not "entitled" to a livelihood! They can't just do some kind of work and then demand to be paid, it has to be one of two factors:

1) They'd already reached an agreement, a binding one that they be paid.

2) Their work produces something others choose to pay for, they cannot just extort money from those unwilling to pay.

In either case, the paying party was willing to pay. We could weep for someone who spent time that was of no value to anyone but in the end they made the choice to do so. Boo hoo, maybe if they wanted a sure thing, a fixed income then they should have chosen a profession where it is not such a gamble!


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By NullSubroutine on 11/24/2007 8:18:54 AM , Rating: 2
I guess my reponse would be both would be symtoms of this disease called capitalism. Everyone talks about religious zealotry and the evil crusaders from this side or that side but the true horror of the world comes from the religion of economics.

Everything is supply and demand. Food, water, resources, hell, even people. Big business, no matter which one it is, loves it when there is more workers. The more workers their are the less they have to pay them, simple supply and demand.

I could name dozens of companies without having to pull out hardly any research that have put a value on human life. Ford factored the cost of a recall vs the number of lawsuits from death and the average payout of these lawsuits. They calculated it would cost more for the recall so they didn't do it!

They care about one thing, money...well two, power as well.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Christopher1 on 11/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Pneumothorax on 11/24/2007 11:20:45 AM , Rating: 3
As a physician I find offense at your remarks. We don't price the treatments you mention, in fact, the vast majority of doctors don't have a hand in the R&D of treatments. We don't profit from these drug companies as drug reps don't really give us "perks" anymore, unlike what lobbyists can do for the politicos. I would much rather prefer a cure for breast cancer/Diabetes , than the chronic treatments that we currently have. I'll be honest with you, other than antibiotics/vaccines/curative surgery, most of medicine is chronic treatment as we don't have the miracle cures. Also patients also bring upon themselves quite a bit of their own ailments. ie.. the 300lb 5'2" patient complaining of back & knee pain/smoker with lung cancer... What I'm trying to say is that most of us are trying to help patients with the limited amount of resources we have, something that record executives don't do. Their business model is: sue/prosecute anyone that might be a threat to their model and dump millions (money provided by consumers ironically) on our shill politicos to continue their agenda.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By wordsworm on 11/24/2007 12:20:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
As a physician I find offense at your remarks.
As a critic of the medical community, I'm not surprised to see that you're offended by my comment.

quote:
We don't price the treatments you mention, in fact, the vast majority of doctors don't have a hand in the R&D of treatments. We don't profit from these drug companies as drug reps don't really give us "perks" anymore, unlike what lobbyists can do for the politicos.
You mean that drug companies don't give you free trips to Hawaii for selling their drugs anymore?

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/13800173/deta...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
http://www.newint.org/issue362/freebies.htm
http://greenfertility.blogspot.com/2007/05/nyt-doc...

Those are just a few articles I managed to find.

quote:
I'll be honest with you, other than antibiotics/vaccines/curative surgery, most of medicine is chronic treatment as we don't have the miracle cures.
Do you think this is a mere coincidence? Come now... do be reasonable: what do you make more profit off of, chronically ill people, or cured people? Even if you're not self aware, what you're involved in is an industry that's profiting heavily on sick and dying people.

Now, let's move on to your comment about record executives and compare them to doctors: Doctors lobby government to make it so that only they can prescribe drugs, so that they can continue to make money on every medication the prescribe (they do in Canada at least - I can't imagine it's different in the US). They never tell you the potential for side effects. I remember when I was 12 years old I looked up the side effects for tofranil, a drug that a doctor prescribed to me. Check out this list of side effects:

Cardiovascular: Orthostatic hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia, palpitation, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, heart block, ECG changes, precipitation of congestive heart failure, stroke.

Psychiatric: Confusional states (especially in the elderly) with hallucinations, disorientation, delusions; anxiety, restlessness, agitation; insomnia and nightmares; hypomania; exacerbation of psychosis.

Neurological: Numbness, tingling, paresthesias of extremities; incoordination, ataxia, tremors; peripheral neuropathy; extrapyramidal symptoms; seizures, alterations in EEG patterns; tinnitus.

(from: http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/imip_ad.htm )

My GOD... I thought to myself then... I'll never trust another doctor again. Heck, half the stuff on there I've never even heard of. Who knows? What's funny is that psych doctors can force people to take meds. Have you ever heard of a record exec having the power to force their music on you?

At least what a record executive does isn't going to give you side effects. If a record exec makes an album too expensive for you to buy, it's not going to prevent you from a life saving medication (see expensive AIDS drugs).

The American and Canadian governments spend trillions of dollars on R&D. Do you really think that the drug companies don't have their own political agendas?

I'm sorry if it hurt your pride when I burst your bubble.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Pneumothorax on 11/24/2007 6:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
That freebie stuff went out the door 2 years ago. I know, because when I was a resident they were giving out Laker's tickets and now I'm out practicing on my own all I get is free brochures and stuff hehe. I guess if you're on the cutting edge or a surgeon there's still free trips given out under the table, but all we get now is a free pen here and there. I DON'T make any money from any drugs presecribed from me. The way most prmary care doctors are paid today I make the same amount of money if I see 1 patient or 30 (which I usually do anyway) per day. So keeping my patients healthy is my goal. Honestly like I said I would rather have all my patients healthy and don't require any drugs. Hmmm... here's a very common diagnosis lets see about my choices. A patient comes in for a routine physical and gets a blood pressure of 180/100. I can do a couple of things: 1. Ignore it, patient has a massive stroke or heart attack, family looks for someone to blame, so lawyer subpeonas my records and finds out I didn't prescribe him any bp meds = malpractice = I loose license or have to award $50K lawsuit cash. 2. Offer patient lifestyle changes & exercise, I don't know if you're a motivated person or not, but most people honestly will not do those things so we're back to square one. 3. Prescribe generic drug like hydrochlorothiazide which is 40+ year old $4 drug at walmart. I try to prescribe generics as if the equivalent brand name drug is usually not any better.. . Tofranil isn't even prescribed regularly anymoe due to those side effects. I make my BUSINESS to tell my patients side effects as Vioxx/Avandia have become recent pariahs and I'm also named in a lawsuit unless I told the patient potential side effects. For high blood pressure I sit down and go over most of the common bp mds and their side effects so the patient and I can chose which one is for them....


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By wordsworm on 11/25/2007 12:34:14 AM , Rating: 1
Ok, so maybe the freeby stuff is gone. However, don't you get a fee for every prescription you hand out? I don't remember what they get in Canada. It's less than $10 I believe. But when you see that many people have 5+ prescriptions, that amount adds up very quickly. Perhaps it's different in the US.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Pneumothorax on 11/25/2007 4:37:59 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm.. Well maybe I should move to north of the border then, as I get exactly 0 cents for each Rx written. Seriously, I work for a mjor HMO here in southern california and alot of my time is fighting for my patients as HMO's modus operandi is to get away with the least amount of dollars spent on each patient. In fact I get sent to the "principal's office" (head medical director of the hospital) if their bean-counter computers see I've been ordering too many Xray's/MRI's/or expensive designer drugs. Most of us docs aren't getting by like nip&tuck/90210 surgeons, in fact those shows disgust me.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By punko on 11/26/2007 9:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
False.

There are no fees for prescriptions back to physicans up here. A physician may require an office visit for a patient to have their prescriptions refilled, but that is proper medicine, review a patients needs prior to refilling a prescription.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Zoomer on 11/24/2007 11:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
You don't have to take their drugs.

The only thing that's really really useful, when treating bacterial infections, are antibiotics.

Got the flu (viral infection)? Shut up and tough it out. Nothing doctors can help except amputating your nose or something like that.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By wordsworm on 11/25/2007 12:05:05 AM , Rating: 2
It's too bad that Korean doctors don't follow your advice. They'll give you a shot for everything. In any case, there is a ton of bacteria in your body. Often, most of that bacteria is doing your body some good, and those antibiotics have the ability to kill not just the bad stuff, but the good stuff as well.

But, back to my point:really the tone of many of the articles presented by DT, and many readers, seem to hold record executives in such poor esteem because they believe that they shouldn't be able to defend their property. I pick on medicine because it's generally on the other side - People respect doctors and medical patents.

Clearly not all physicians are the same, any more than record executives. A lot of people look down on them because they make a lot of money off of music. Well, physicians make a lot of money off the sick and the dying. Heck, some of them make a fortune off of plastic surgery. I was just trying to provide blanket statements on the medical community to counter the blanket statements about the artistic community.

If the wealthy don't staunchly fight for and defend their rights, what are the little guys going to do who don't have the seemingly bottomless pockets for legal warfare?


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By WelshBloke on 11/25/2007 12:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Confusional states (especially in the elderly) with hallucinations,


Hmmmm, how old are you anyway? ;)


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Drexial on 11/27/2007 11:11:24 AM , Rating: 1
please separate your statements regarding doctors and the drug industry. Doctors don't profit off of sick people, but the people that get paid to do R&D for a company like Phizer does. This is why government funding goes to them instead of the cancer institute. Doctors generally get shit on. The owners of the hospitals and the insurance companies most definitely see bonuses for prescribing a drug that doesn't cure, where a cure that might be possible isn't supported by a health insurance company. so stop bashing doctors, as most of them would rather cure the person. but the doctors aren't responsible for what coverage their patients can afford.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Ringold on 11/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Not gonna stop them.
By isaacmacdonald on 11/25/2007 4:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
Re 3: You are not paid what you are worth to the company. In a sufficiently efficient labor market, your wage will be controlled by what other people of comparable skill are willing to accept to perform your job. This is why an associate can get paid x while billing at rate y, while a partner can get paid 8x while billing at rate 2y.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Ringold on 11/25/2007 8:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, but I didn't say what you are paid what you are worth to the company, just said you are paid what you are worth, so we're not in disagreement. If you produce $10 of output the company would go out of business if you were paid $10 for your output. What you said is correct; supply and demand will impact the prevailing wage rate. At the end of the day, though, one is paid what one is worth in that asking for more would land them in soup kitchens; if they were worth more, in order to avoid losing them the employer would present a counter offer.

There's a decent enough relationship with skills and productivity to wage, though, despite what socialist claims of exploitation suggest; commercial pilots are highly trained and responsible for the lives of hundreds, for example. WalMart employees, on the other hand, need no skills and are responsible for little. It's easy to guess who gets paid more. Likewise, if those associates you are refering to have what it takes to ultimately become a partner, then they, too, will reach that level.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By BlackJew on 11/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Not gonna stop them.
By borowki on 11/24/2007 8:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
Sensible people do not watch shitty movies or listen to shitty music. Only those who seriously love shit and consume shitload of shit would become upset when they can't get shit for free.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By qwertyz on 11/25/2007 1:46:04 PM , Rating: 1
Those 44 companies that wrote that letter seems to be more perverted than I thought they can be, they should keep in mind that they have no power in choosing the candidates but peoples have it instead.


Amusing
By Darkefire on 11/23/2007 11:38:57 PM , Rating: 5
...how the media industry in this country can rank music and video piracy on the same scale as things like war, poverty, recession, civil liberties, loss of international prestige, and the fact that Canadian money is now worth more than ours. I'm pretty sure most presidential candidates could give a steaming pile of feces about little Johnny Do-Good downloading the latest album. Besides, why even try to weed out the unsupportive candidates? Any politician worth his salt would sell his own grandmother if the price is right.

Also, someone needs to remind them that as much as they wish otherwise, the progress of science and creativity will proceed unhindered by how well the latest Britney Spears CD does on the charts.




RE: Amusing
By just4U on 11/24/2007 2:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
I think there is definitely government interest in all of this. You have to consider that they lose alot of tax revenue as well. Can't collect from what isn't being paid for afterall.


RE: Amusing
By Ringold on 11/25/2007 1:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
They can tweak an obscure line in the code, and raise billions.

They can dangle a little piece of class-warfare red meat, and they can raise tens to hundreds of billions.

An incrementally failing music industry, while the rest of the economy is growing, is such a tiny blip on the federal radar as to be mistaken for a fleck of dust.


RE: Amusing
By TSS on 11/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: Amusing
By borowki on 11/25/2007 6:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
Just don't carry that philosophy into your dating life.


RE: Amusing
By SavagePotato on 11/24/2007 2:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't it interesting how the world has changed. In the days of Shakespeare, entertainers were considered in the same league as prostitutes. In today's world they are our new gods.

Like the worship of Zeus and Heracles in the days of Alexander, today people try to measure up to celebrities, musicians, elevate these people to the status of gods in the same way ancient civilisations did myth.

The world would be a better place if the entertainment industry came crashing down a few notches. Back to reality rather than the inflated godlike status it has come to.

I think thats the worst thing about the American Dream. That it fools people into accepting just about anything based on the promise that "you too" have the same chance to strike it lucky and become a god. Western society needs a return to reality.


RE: Amusing
By just4U on 11/24/2007 2:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
entertainers were revered in the middle ages and punished severely when they didnt <cough> entertain. Good ones could expect to live quite comfortably on the generousity of their audiances (altho not like kings like they do today).

Ones that really didnt do very well or incurred the wrath of local authorities were most likely stoned, or at the very least run out of town.

(this is not researched btw .. just what I heard :) )


RE: Amusing
By wordsworm on 11/24/2007 3:02:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Isn't it interesting how the world has changed. In the days of Shakespeare, entertainers were considered in the same league as prostitutes. In today's world they are our new gods.


It's precisely because of guys like Shakespeare that copyright laws need to exist. He was a king of thieves when it came to his plays. In those days, no one had to pay royalties to the original creators of the plays. Shakespeare merely translated them, had them rewritten (perhaps by Francis Bacon), and made a fortune from them. If you can find a play that Shakespeare actually wrote, you'll be the first to discover it. In those days, there were no copyright laws to protect artists. If those days were today, Hollywood wouldn't even need to consult with JK Rowling to obtain permission to show a Harry Potter movie - Disney, aka modern Shakespeare - would've done it already. Of course, it'd never have made it past the sensors since it would have been heresy.

quote:
elevate these people to the status of gods in the same way ancient civilisations did myth.
You say that as if we don't have our own mythologies in modern days: see Book of Mormon, Bible, and Koran (to mention a few) for modern active mythologies.


RE: Amusing
By sinful on 11/24/2007 5:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's precisely because of guys like Shakespeare that copyright laws need to exist. He was a king of thieves when it came to his plays. In those days, no one had to pay royalties to the original creators of the plays. Shakespeare merely translated them, had them rewritten (perhaps by Francis Bacon), and made a fortune from them.


And, ironically, had there been copyright law then, the works Shakespeare supposedly stole would probably be lost for all time, as they wouldn't have been translated, or rewritten....

You can't simply extoll the virtues of one side of the coin and ignore the other side of the coin.

Copyrights, as they were intended, were supposed to grant an author a LIMITED amount of time in which they could be the sole owner of the work, after which they would end up in the public domain for all of society to enjoy.
In their current incarnation, that's not really happening.

Draconian enforcement of copyright would be OK -- *IF* those copyrights expired in a *reasonable* amount of time.
In other words, "you have 20 years to make your fortunes off your idea. If you haven't done so by then, sorry, you can't just sit on it forever and try to use it as a landmine against someone else that IS".

And that's the way it was originally intended.

As it is, copyright law is so ridiculously anti-consumer it's ignored by a huge segment of the population. How long does it take for copyrights to expire now? 75 years? 100 years? 120 years?

The more unbalanced and ridiculous they make the laws, the more and more they're ignored.


RE: Amusing
By SavagePotato on 11/25/2007 2:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
The point wasn't about protecting their works. It was that they are not fighting for that. They are fighting for the protection of their god status. Not protection of their ability to make a living, rather their ability to make a killing. I just can't ever get behind the idea of supporting someones fight to be a billionaire instead of a millionaire.

The artists are represented in protection from plagiarism by other artists. Organisations like the RIAA are fighting for their existance. The fact is they are not needed, the artist can release their content without them or their inredible royalties.

My hope is that groups like the RIAA bury themselves with their own anti-consumerism. The more they punish the consumer the more they make releasing ones own music seem like a good idea. Not neccesarily the way Radiohead did, but a more feasable and profitable way.


RE: Amusing
By isaacmacdonald on 11/25/2007 4:42:03 PM , Rating: 3
I agree about the relative magnitude of the problem of digital piracy (vastly less important than helath care cost, war, etc). Nevertheless, strong copyright law is critical to technological and, consequently, economic progress.


This worries me
By psyph3r on 11/24/2007 8:00:52 AM , Rating: 2
Don't copy that Floppy!

this rather enrages me..Glad the candidate i support doesn't accept corporate money




RE: This worries me
By rika13 on 11/24/2007 8:57:33 AM , Rating: 2
you'd be surprised, obama isnt know for corp donors, but that cheater (anyone who wins by having a chicago newspaper sue for release of sealed child custody records in california is a cheater) has taken donations from the RIAA

most politicians have, either out of respect for business or because they are in bed with the media, also soemtimes it doesnt show as RIAA or MPAA, but as sony or disney or some subsidary/PAC they have made to hide their identity


RE: This worries me
By sj420 on 11/24/2007 10:44:27 AM , Rating: 3
I am not worried about this country anymore. I am not worried about any of the candidates or any of the stupid laws in this country.

I am going to leave and return to the outside world- Reality.

This country is bound for destruction of its own people. I am not one of "their people". If they mess with me, a revolt comes in the form of crowds with pitch forks, torches, and sharp sticks.

I hope they like being taken off their horse and mutilated with said sticks, because this country won't be free until we fight for it.

After all, our money is only worth something because the government says it is. Our things are only important because the money that is said to be important bought them. That is only important because we went to where we "MUST WORK OR DIE ON THE STREETS" to get our meaningless currency.

Now they start to protect us from ourselves? Start to protect us from our own things? I think not. Those that are in power are not even serving to protect anymore. They are simply serving to serve. They are serving to serve it up to all of us how they think this country should be. No longer do I follow anything anyone says, if they mess with me. The end comes. These foolish little people in their foolish little groups think they have power over everyone. Well lamers, let me tell you, you may believe in fairy tales, you may love working for money to buy things, but when they start telling you that you can't live in a certain way, can't say certain things, can't do certain things, when they tell you that you can't use what you purchased with said worthless currency, it is stepping above and over the line.

I just hope the military has the nuts to shoot its own people. Otherwise its all down onto this group of self concieted rich pricks that just want money for themselves, their families, their friends, and their partners.

As I sit here, in this country, watching the snowball reach the end of the hill, it slowly begins to smash the city into nothing, just adding it to the snowball - Headed for Washington D.C.

Enjoy it, you bunch of brainwashed drones. Follow each footstep, for you will fall just as hard as your leaders.

P.S. ALL of the candidates are the same. This group of idiots are apart of a Selective Dictatorship. A selected group of people that are allowed to be voted for, without everyone getting a fair share of questions in. Only two candidates are actually COMPARED FOR THEIR ISSUES. What an idiotic moronic way to see who literally is the best. Instead of comparing everyone, let them bicker about stupid things, make idiotic slogans that drones will cheer for, and not actually talk about what they will literally do. What their actual issues are. The issues are not their phrases, but when they are actually lined up next to each other on paper and each get described by their values side by side. That is how ALL the candidates should be treated, not the last two. Secondly, anyone, ANYONE (don't care who you are) that likes Guiliani is a complete arrogant waste of flesh. If you like him, you seem to not have the comprehension to google and see if he is actually worth anything. For those that know, he burried the remains of 9/11 in the dumb, used said debri that was still filled with firefighters remains, to fill potholes. He did Such a good job there aren't ANY fingers or bones sticking out of those potholes AT ALL. Also, he lets the cops off scotch free everytime when they shoot innovent civilians. Anyone that likes him is a nazi and should be lined up on the firing wall, much like rudy himself (and all of the republicans, and governmental figures at the top today - throw religious people in there too).

I am SICK of all of you PEOPLE and your dumb fake WORLD. Enjoy living in this massive ball of bile and wasted air, flesh, and bone. While dwelling on your imaginary world in the clouds. Reality is in space, people, reality in is knowing what you are doing to the planet and TRYING TO PREVENT IT. None of us f-ing americans do ANYTHING. We're all IGNORANT DRONES, WORK, PURCHASE, WORK, PURCHASE. GRGRAGRGARGARHAAGHGHAGHAGHAGHGHGHHHHGHGHHGHGHG


RE: This worries me
By snyper256 on 11/25/2007 10:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
You seem enlightened.


RE: This worries me
By tmouse on 11/26/2007 8:07:53 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like someones off their meds............


RE: This worries me
By AlphaVirus on 11/26/2007 10:24:29 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly dude, you should write that down. When I was reading it I imagined a heroic rebellion or something fighting for what was right. If you do make a book/movie, at least you know you will have the MPA protecting you.


How about...
By MrDiSante on 11/23/2007 11:05:30 PM , Rating: 5
How will you uphold our civil liberties instead of trying to get campaign funds from a bunch of money-grubbing organizations like the MPAA, RIAA, CPCC and the rest of them.




RE: How about...
By BladeVenom on 11/23/2007 11:54:15 PM , Rating: 5
On behalf of 291 million American customers(victims) of the creative industries...


Piracy
By sidhu663 on 11/24/2007 12:03:07 PM , Rating: 4
i miss read 'reduced piracy' as 'reduced privacy' but somehow i feel that that will probably be the result




Payola
By wallijonn on 11/26/2007 9:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Copyright Alliance to Presidential Candidates: How Will You Help Us?


Candidates to CA, how much are you going to pay us under the table?

This seems like just another example of corporations buying politicians and their political power to form legislation. In other words, in today's world, it's business as usual.




"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki