Mike D, Adrock, MCA and ... Frogger
June 29, 2004 8:11 PM Subscribe
Help the Beastie Boys get across the road safely to the political protest rally. Look out! The tyranny of the Bush Regime won't make it easy!
Also way too easy, to boot.
posted by Keyser Soze at 8:21 PM on June 29, 2004
posted by Keyser Soze at 8:21 PM on June 29, 2004
I liked them more when they had songs about date rape.
posted by ColdChef at 8:37 PM on June 29, 2004
posted by ColdChef at 8:37 PM on June 29, 2004
I just notice the actual URL... this is an official product?!?
posted by techgnollogic at 9:36 PM on June 29, 2004
posted by techgnollogic at 9:36 PM on June 29, 2004
I like how after round 10, you have to get the Bush Administration past the tyranny of the Beastie Boys, and it's even harder.
posted by techgnollogic at 9:49 PM on June 29, 2004
posted by techgnollogic at 9:49 PM on June 29, 2004
I just notice the actual URL... this is an official product?!?
Sure: "Capitol Records: Stickin' it to The Man(tm) for over Fifty Years!"
Little known fact: Making money selling pre-fab youth rebellion culture is the ultimate in subversion. The original Founding Fathers had a record label; that's the only way the 13 colonies could have thrown off the yoke of oppression!
Sure, scoff, but I swear, it's true.
posted by Ayn Marx at 10:23 PM on June 29, 2004
Sure: "Capitol Records: Stickin' it to The Man(tm) for over Fifty Years!"
Little known fact: Making money selling pre-fab youth rebellion culture is the ultimate in subversion. The original Founding Fathers had a record label; that's the only way the 13 colonies could have thrown off the yoke of oppression!
Sure, scoff, but I swear, it's true.
posted by Ayn Marx at 10:23 PM on June 29, 2004
The Bestie Boys?
Come on, they've got about as much cred as Brittney Spears these days.
Less, actually. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least miss Spears is not trying to install malware on her fans' computers.
So the beasies think they can repair the damage they've caused themselves by offering this weak, 'rebellious' crapfest that some underpaid corporate slave whipped up in Flash editor in less than 4 minutes?
I think not.
posted by spazzm at 10:41 PM on June 29, 2004
Come on, they've got about as much cred as Brittney Spears these days.
Less, actually. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at least miss Spears is not trying to install malware on her fans' computers.
So the beasies think they can repair the damage they've caused themselves by offering this weak, 'rebellious' crapfest that some underpaid corporate slave whipped up in Flash editor in less than 4 minutes?
I think not.
posted by spazzm at 10:41 PM on June 29, 2004
The Beastie Boys have some amount of cred saved up with me, but they are spending it. Britney Spears? Come on.
posted by scarabic at 10:59 PM on June 29, 2004
posted by scarabic at 10:59 PM on June 29, 2004
The very nature of cred is to be sooner spent than accumulated.
posted by spazzm at 11:08 PM on June 29, 2004
posted by spazzm at 11:08 PM on June 29, 2004
when exactly did i become cooler than the beastie boys?
posted by tsarfan at 12:36 AM on June 30, 2004
posted by tsarfan at 12:36 AM on June 30, 2004
Help me get the DRM off their newest release!
And why should somebody want to do a thing like that?
posted by ed\26h at 12:38 AM on June 30, 2004
And why should somebody want to do a thing like that?
posted by ed\26h at 12:38 AM on June 30, 2004
Running the Beasties into the tanks is far more fun than getting them to the rally.
posted by rudyfink at 3:01 AM on June 30, 2004
posted by rudyfink at 3:01 AM on June 30, 2004
And why should somebody want to do a thing like that?
Because maybe you want to listen to it using your usual mp3 player, instead of the Macrovision software that it silently loads and runs on your machine. Or maybe you want to listen to it on your iPod. Maybe you want to make a playlist that includes Beastie Boys songs and other, legally acquired mp3s. The disk doesn't even play on some PCs.
The Beastie Boys DRM means that you are paying the same price for a CD that has less functionality than a normal CD. That way, the record companies can charge you once for the CD, once for the proprietary digital format, and yet again for other uses of the music. Or, like Sony, they can sell music that only works with their own digital music players. Part of the goal is to make it impossible to use a format like mp3 that isn't under corporate control.
In any case, you can disable the DRM by holding down the Shift key when you insert the CD. It's not about piracy, it's about RIAA control over how music is played, and removal of established legal rights to fair use and time- and space-shifting.
posted by fuzz at 3:28 AM on June 30, 2004
Because maybe you want to listen to it using your usual mp3 player, instead of the Macrovision software that it silently loads and runs on your machine. Or maybe you want to listen to it on your iPod. Maybe you want to make a playlist that includes Beastie Boys songs and other, legally acquired mp3s. The disk doesn't even play on some PCs.
The Beastie Boys DRM means that you are paying the same price for a CD that has less functionality than a normal CD. That way, the record companies can charge you once for the CD, once for the proprietary digital format, and yet again for other uses of the music. Or, like Sony, they can sell music that only works with their own digital music players. Part of the goal is to make it impossible to use a format like mp3 that isn't under corporate control.
In any case, you can disable the DRM by holding down the Shift key when you insert the CD. It's not about piracy, it's about RIAA control over how music is played, and removal of established legal rights to fair use and time- and space-shifting.
posted by fuzz at 3:28 AM on June 30, 2004
So, it is because you have concluded that DRM measures infringe upon your legal rights of fair use that they should be opposed?
posted by ed\26h at 4:46 AM on June 30, 2004
posted by ed\26h at 4:46 AM on June 30, 2004
No, it's because I've concluded that DRM measures are part of a record industry strategy to protect their own monopoly on production, promotion, and distribution. That monopoly is threatened by digital technologies, so the RIAA has to find a way to cripple them.
One part of their strategy is to spend money on lawyers and campaign contributions, in order to extend copyright law beyond what that law was originally intended to achieve. Another part is to find ways to prevent people from using open technologies for making, distributing, and listening to music.
The Beastie Boys have said that they would have preferred not to put DRM on their music, but the record company forced it on them. Since they signed a long-term contract with the monopoly, they have no control.
DRM provides no benefit to the music, and comes at the expense of new artists, people who love music, and new technology. This speech does a good job explaining why.
posted by fuzz at 5:22 AM on June 30, 2004
One part of their strategy is to spend money on lawyers and campaign contributions, in order to extend copyright law beyond what that law was originally intended to achieve. Another part is to find ways to prevent people from using open technologies for making, distributing, and listening to music.
The Beastie Boys have said that they would have preferred not to put DRM on their music, but the record company forced it on them. Since they signed a long-term contract with the monopoly, they have no control.
DRM provides no benefit to the music, and comes at the expense of new artists, people who love music, and new technology. This speech does a good job explaining why.
posted by fuzz at 5:22 AM on June 30, 2004
so how long before people just start getting the disc, holding down shift, then rip and burn a non-DRM copy?
this shit is really pissing me off lately. i don't want anything that i don't know about to be installed on my computer.
guess i won't be picking up this new beastie album any time soon.
posted by caution live frogs at 5:22 AM on June 30, 2004
this shit is really pissing me off lately. i don't want anything that i don't know about to be installed on my computer.
guess i won't be picking up this new beastie album any time soon.
posted by caution live frogs at 5:22 AM on June 30, 2004
Fuzz: You did originally say that it was about removal of established legal rights to fair use, but aside from that, do you believe that a laws original intention should always be the factor which defines it's continuing scope?
I have read the article - Thank you.
posted by ed\26h at 5:57 AM on June 30, 2004
I have read the article - Thank you.
posted by ed\26h at 5:57 AM on June 30, 2004
Caution Live Frogs: Not buying the album soon or ever would certainly be my advice to you in that case.
posted by ed\26h at 5:59 AM on June 30, 2004
posted by ed\26h at 5:59 AM on June 30, 2004
According to the Beastie Boys website, there's no copy control software on the US and UK releases of the album (though there is on the European release). Not arguing for or against the publisher's right to include DRM here--just pointing it out.
posted by Prospero at 6:06 AM on June 30, 2004
posted by Prospero at 6:06 AM on June 30, 2004
Come on, they've got about as much cred as Brittney Spears these days.
Oooh, cred. Whenever I listen to an album, I always find myself saying, "Yeah, the music's lousy, but what great cred. Cred's definitely worth $16.99"
posted by jonmc at 6:09 AM on June 30, 2004
Oooh, cred. Whenever I listen to an album, I always find myself saying, "Yeah, the music's lousy, but what great cred. Cred's definitely worth $16.99"
posted by jonmc at 6:09 AM on June 30, 2004
ed, I think law is a practical matter, not a moral one. The original intention of copyright law served a practical purpose, and I don't think there's any practical justification for extending it to protect obsolete monopolistic business models.
The record companies have always tried to extend the law to further their own interests at the expense of artists and the general public. The public won a victory in the home taping wars of the 70s, and it won another one when the industry failed to outlaw the Diamond Rio mp3 player. I don't want to see those victories taken away.
posted by fuzz at 6:12 AM on June 30, 2004
The record companies have always tried to extend the law to further their own interests at the expense of artists and the general public. The public won a victory in the home taping wars of the 70s, and it won another one when the industry failed to outlaw the Diamond Rio mp3 player. I don't want to see those victories taken away.
posted by fuzz at 6:12 AM on June 30, 2004
As scarabic said you can just hold the up key to negotiate the first 10 levels. After that you might have to stop before the other side because the twist is, ooooh, there's traffic in the last lane after that.
Collisions don't make sense because you can be hit by traffic in a different lane (unlike frogger or horace goes skiing, which are both a lot better).
Not all flash games are created equal. I think we should try and point out the better ones.
posted by nthdegx at 6:20 AM on June 30, 2004
Collisions don't make sense because you can be hit by traffic in a different lane (unlike frogger or horace goes skiing, which are both a lot better).
Not all flash games are created equal. I think we should try and point out the better ones.
posted by nthdegx at 6:20 AM on June 30, 2004
My mistake. There is traffic in the final lane in the first ten levels if you hang around for it.
posted by nthdegx at 6:22 AM on June 30, 2004
posted by nthdegx at 6:22 AM on June 30, 2004
Fuzz: It's very unusual to believe that laws are practical matters rather than moral ones. Does this mean you believe that if an action can be reasoned as being immoral, but it is in no way impractical, then that action should remain legal?
Do you not think that the idea that any extension of such laws is simply to protect obsolete monopolistic business models, begs the question?
posted by ed\26h at 6:26 AM on June 30, 2004
Do you not think that the idea that any extension of such laws is simply to protect obsolete monopolistic business models, begs the question?
posted by ed\26h at 6:26 AM on June 30, 2004
a record industry strategy to protect their own monopoly on
What? So too then does the footwear industry have a monopoly on shoes, the paperclip industry have a monopoly on paperclips, the turnip industry have a monopoly on turnips. Saying an industry has a monopoly on the product that characterizes it is a tautology.
That monopoly is threatened by digital technologies
Oligopoly. Its important to be precise about this, especially since we're talking about legal issues. Though certainly one could challenge that an oligopoly exists. They would lose, but they could challenge. Anyway, that was the point of the class action law suit we all got $20 for a while back. Several companies conspired to fix prices and be anti-competitive, not just one.
posted by ChasFile at 6:39 AM on June 30, 2004
What? So too then does the footwear industry have a monopoly on shoes, the paperclip industry have a monopoly on paperclips, the turnip industry have a monopoly on turnips. Saying an industry has a monopoly on the product that characterizes it is a tautology.
That monopoly is threatened by digital technologies
Oligopoly. Its important to be precise about this, especially since we're talking about legal issues. Though certainly one could challenge that an oligopoly exists. They would lose, but they could challenge. Anyway, that was the point of the class action law suit we all got $20 for a while back. Several companies conspired to fix prices and be anti-competitive, not just one.
posted by ChasFile at 6:39 AM on June 30, 2004
ed, if you think it's immoral for someone to cheat on their spouse, does that mean it should also be illegal? What are the practical consequences of making it illegal? Law is not always the right tool for expressing our ideas about morality. A law is a good one not because it has some moral force, but because it has positive practical consequences for society. Arguments about law are arguments about what the phrase "positive practical consequences" really means.
As for the specifics of the DMCA and other excessive extensions of copyright law, the US Constitution says that the purpose of copyright law is to promote creative works. I believe that the current regime, as applied to the music industry, has the opposite effect. I think that both the way those laws were implemented and their practical consequences mean that they are in fact a tool for the benefit of the major music and film companies, and nothing more.
I'm not saying that DRM should be outlawed, just that we should be able to assert our rights to fair use and resist DRM. Right now, holding down the Shift key, or even talking about it in a public forum, is technically illegal under the DMCA. That's a bad law.
ChasFile, you're right about it being an oligopoly, not a monopoly. But the situation is very different from your paperclip example, because of practices like price-fixing, abusive contracts, fraudulent accounting practices, bribery for promotion, and buying new laws that restrict technologies that have legitimate non-infringing uses. Barriers to entry should come from providing value, not resticting competition.
(sorry everyone else if we're derailing the thread)
posted by fuzz at 7:01 AM on June 30, 2004
As for the specifics of the DMCA and other excessive extensions of copyright law, the US Constitution says that the purpose of copyright law is to promote creative works. I believe that the current regime, as applied to the music industry, has the opposite effect. I think that both the way those laws were implemented and their practical consequences mean that they are in fact a tool for the benefit of the major music and film companies, and nothing more.
I'm not saying that DRM should be outlawed, just that we should be able to assert our rights to fair use and resist DRM. Right now, holding down the Shift key, or even talking about it in a public forum, is technically illegal under the DMCA. That's a bad law.
ChasFile, you're right about it being an oligopoly, not a monopoly. But the situation is very different from your paperclip example, because of practices like price-fixing, abusive contracts, fraudulent accounting practices, bribery for promotion, and buying new laws that restrict technologies that have legitimate non-infringing uses. Barriers to entry should come from providing value, not resticting competition.
(sorry everyone else if we're derailing the thread)
posted by fuzz at 7:01 AM on June 30, 2004
fuzz: Right now, holding down the Shift key, or even talking about it in a public forum, is technically illegal under the DMCA.
It's not. To qualify for DMCA protection a copy protection scheme must be "effective". As anyone with autoplay turned off doesn't even have to depress the shift key and as shift key and insert cd is a documented feature of windows since autoplay came out; I don't think even the RIAA can make a case for effective.
posted by Mitheral at 7:32 AM on June 30, 2004
It's not. To qualify for DMCA protection a copy protection scheme must be "effective". As anyone with autoplay turned off doesn't even have to depress the shift key and as shift key and insert cd is a documented feature of windows since autoplay came out; I don't think even the RIAA can make a case for effective.
posted by Mitheral at 7:32 AM on June 30, 2004
Fuzz: I do not hold that all immoral acts are should be outlawed; my assertion is that if laws are simply matters or practicality rather than morality there would be no reason to outlaw an activity simply on the grounds that it is wrong if the continued legal permissibility of such an activity is logistically practical. This was a softer way of saying: No, laws are not purely practical and unaffected by ethics. To suggest the opposite would be somewhat ridiculous.
But even if you continue to reject this idea, it seems rather inconsistent to rely on the idea that one's legal fair use rights justify infringing other authoritative rules which are also, by nature, legal ones. To say something akin to, and with regards to this matter at least; "The laws I break are bad laws, the laws that should be upheld in my interest are good laws" would negate legality entirely and resolve the issue to a purely ethical concern.
posted by ed\26h at 7:41 AM on June 30, 2004
But even if you continue to reject this idea, it seems rather inconsistent to rely on the idea that one's legal fair use rights justify infringing other authoritative rules which are also, by nature, legal ones. To say something akin to, and with regards to this matter at least; "The laws I break are bad laws, the laws that should be upheld in my interest are good laws" would negate legality entirely and resolve the issue to a purely ethical concern.
posted by ed\26h at 7:41 AM on June 30, 2004
ed/26h - let's take a paralel example as a way of explaining my position with respect to these laws.
Let's say that Haynes and BVD and a couple of the other major undergarment manufactures get together and form a lobby. Let's say that lobby writes a law that says that when somebody buys their undergarments, they aren't buying the undergarment. Rather they are buying a license to use the undergarment in a specific way. The lobby buys a few members of congress, and the law passes.
Since the undergarment still belongs to the manufacture, they need to be able to protect their property. So, they install a plastic shield that sits between the garment and areas of the wearer that might tend to soil the garment.
Let's say the shield is uncomfortable and easily removed. Naturally, people buying the garment begin removing the shield. The under garment lobby writes a new law that makes it a crime to remove the shield, and they buy a few representatives of congress, and that law passes.
Now, I as a wearer have a few options. First, I can choose not to wear any underwear. That's possible, but not really practical.
Second, I can choose to buy garments from companies that don't install the shield (at least until the lobby passes a law that requires that any pants sold must look for the shield and only close when the shield is present). However, these smaller manufactures are harder to find, so while the quality of the workmanship may be better, and the people who make the garments may be paid better, the majority of people who shop at Wal-Mart won't bother.
I can try to remove the corrupt politicians who enacted the laws and attempt to get the laws reversed. But if the primary users of undergarments were young people who tend not to participate in government, and most people who do participate have more pressing concerns it's unlikely that I will have much luck.
I can flout the law which I view to be the product of a corrupt system. This puts me outside of society in a small way, and it opens me up to punishment. However, if a large enough portion of the public also finds themselves outside of this law, the law becomes largely unenforceable. Many people will likely opt for that method, and they won't feel bad, and they won't feel like criminals because although laws are largely arbitrary, you still need a majority of the public to agree fundamentally with the law. I suspect that it's rarely fear of prosecution that keeps people honest. It's just that most people really are honest. Unfortunately for BVD - regardless of the number of laws they purchase, most people just don't feel that removing an uncomfortable plastic shield is something that should be criminalized, so they'll ignore those laws.
posted by willnot at 8:29 AM on June 30, 2004
Let's say that Haynes and BVD and a couple of the other major undergarment manufactures get together and form a lobby. Let's say that lobby writes a law that says that when somebody buys their undergarments, they aren't buying the undergarment. Rather they are buying a license to use the undergarment in a specific way. The lobby buys a few members of congress, and the law passes.
Since the undergarment still belongs to the manufacture, they need to be able to protect their property. So, they install a plastic shield that sits between the garment and areas of the wearer that might tend to soil the garment.
Let's say the shield is uncomfortable and easily removed. Naturally, people buying the garment begin removing the shield. The under garment lobby writes a new law that makes it a crime to remove the shield, and they buy a few representatives of congress, and that law passes.
Now, I as a wearer have a few options. First, I can choose not to wear any underwear. That's possible, but not really practical.
Second, I can choose to buy garments from companies that don't install the shield (at least until the lobby passes a law that requires that any pants sold must look for the shield and only close when the shield is present). However, these smaller manufactures are harder to find, so while the quality of the workmanship may be better, and the people who make the garments may be paid better, the majority of people who shop at Wal-Mart won't bother.
I can try to remove the corrupt politicians who enacted the laws and attempt to get the laws reversed. But if the primary users of undergarments were young people who tend not to participate in government, and most people who do participate have more pressing concerns it's unlikely that I will have much luck.
I can flout the law which I view to be the product of a corrupt system. This puts me outside of society in a small way, and it opens me up to punishment. However, if a large enough portion of the public also finds themselves outside of this law, the law becomes largely unenforceable. Many people will likely opt for that method, and they won't feel bad, and they won't feel like criminals because although laws are largely arbitrary, you still need a majority of the public to agree fundamentally with the law. I suspect that it's rarely fear of prosecution that keeps people honest. It's just that most people really are honest. Unfortunately for BVD - regardless of the number of laws they purchase, most people just don't feel that removing an uncomfortable plastic shield is something that should be criminalized, so they'll ignore those laws.
posted by willnot at 8:29 AM on June 30, 2004
Well, firstly the premise that the laws which affect the model in which intellectual content is sold were solely written by, and through corrupt means passed by, the record industry is not one I think it would be wise to accept prima facie.
A similar license model would be utterly bizarre with regards to physical items such as clothing but for an intellectual property based commodity it seems much more reasonable.
To suggest that exercising your choice not to buy intellectual content (that is predominately if not entirely, for most, a luxury and) which is protected in a manner you find unpalatable, is as unpractical as if the same were true of basic clothing is, well, odd.
Again, to state that it’s OK to break these laws because they are bad laws, begs the question.
posted by ed\26h at 9:01 AM on June 30, 2004
A similar license model would be utterly bizarre with regards to physical items such as clothing but for an intellectual property based commodity it seems much more reasonable.
To suggest that exercising your choice not to buy intellectual content (that is predominately if not entirely, for most, a luxury and) which is protected in a manner you find unpalatable, is as unpractical as if the same were true of basic clothing is, well, odd.
Again, to state that it’s OK to break these laws because they are bad laws, begs the question.
posted by ed\26h at 9:01 AM on June 30, 2004
Thoreau wrote an essay that may be of interest here.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:28 AM on June 30, 2004
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:28 AM on June 30, 2004
A similar license model would be utterly bizarre with regards to physical items such as clothing but for an intellectual property based commodity it seems much more reasonable.
To you.
Again, to state that it’s OK to break these laws because they are bad laws, begs the question.
No, it doesn't. If "a bad law" is equivalent to "a law I break," then it does beg the question. No one has implied that they are equivalent except you.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:31 AM on June 30, 2004
To you.
Again, to state that it’s OK to break these laws because they are bad laws, begs the question.
No, it doesn't. If "a bad law" is equivalent to "a law I break," then it does beg the question. No one has implied that they are equivalent except you.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:31 AM on June 30, 2004
I can choose not to wear any underwear. That's possible, but not really practical.
Wow, you learn something new every day!
posted by kindall at 10:35 AM on June 30, 2004
Wow, you learn something new every day!
posted by kindall at 10:35 AM on June 30, 2004
A CD is a physical object. The intellectual property is the music it contains. The music on a CD is stored in digital information, which computers are good at copying. This is a good thing for the home user. Before the Discman, if I wanted to listen to a CD I'd purchased while I was walking, I made a cassette tape copy and put that copy in my Walkman. I'm sure if Sony had their way I would ideally be buying two copies of one album (the video game market works a bit like this) just so I could have a portable one.
But at least with portable video games, I understand the cost of porting the code and manufacturing the plastic cartridge. The company loses nothing if I copy my digital audio bits onto a portable digital-audio-bit player for my own use. Much like the VCR that assumed I was tyring to make a copy of Eddie Izzard's "Glorious" when I watched it through a second VCR this weekend, the technology prevented me from enjoying my purchase because it assumed I was a criminal. Frankly, screw that sort of thing. Screw it right in the wherever it traditionally gets screwed.
I bought the CD, I should be able to listen to it on all my devices. CDs will soon be obsolete, anyway-- you can already see how The Youth Of Today have trouble with concepts like "intellectual property."
(I have trouble with it, because if a lot of people are copying something, that probably means it's good and more people will hear it. At least SOME of those people will want the full quality product. Not everyone is a pirate.)
posted by kevspace at 10:35 AM on June 30, 2004
But at least with portable video games, I understand the cost of porting the code and manufacturing the plastic cartridge. The company loses nothing if I copy my digital audio bits onto a portable digital-audio-bit player for my own use. Much like the VCR that assumed I was tyring to make a copy of Eddie Izzard's "Glorious" when I watched it through a second VCR this weekend, the technology prevented me from enjoying my purchase because it assumed I was a criminal. Frankly, screw that sort of thing. Screw it right in the wherever it traditionally gets screwed.
I bought the CD, I should be able to listen to it on all my devices. CDs will soon be obsolete, anyway-- you can already see how The Youth Of Today have trouble with concepts like "intellectual property."
(I have trouble with it, because if a lot of people are copying something, that probably means it's good and more people will hear it. At least SOME of those people will want the full quality product. Not everyone is a pirate.)
posted by kevspace at 10:35 AM on June 30, 2004
Oooh, cred. Whenever I listen to an album, I always find myself saying, "Yeah, the music's lousy, but what great cred. Cred's definitely worth $16.99"
That pretty much sums up the Grunge Years, jonmc. I remember people at college having heartfelt arguments about whether, say, Stone Temple Pilots or Alice In Chains had more "cred".
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:52 AM on June 30, 2004
That pretty much sums up the Grunge Years, jonmc. I remember people at college having heartfelt arguments about whether, say, Stone Temple Pilots or Alice In Chains had more "cred".
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:52 AM on June 30, 2004
can't believe no one did it yet:
You gotta fight...for your right...to frogger!!!
posted by amberglow at 11:00 AM on June 30, 2004
You gotta fight...for your right...to frogger!!!
posted by amberglow at 11:00 AM on June 30, 2004
Sonofsamian: Well, not just to me but to rational persons. A license model on a physical item would literally serve no purpose whereas it does for intellectual property.
Considering whether these laws are bad or not was one of the very things in contention, stating it's OK to break them because they’re bad does beg the question.
posted by ed\26h at 11:48 AM on June 30, 2004
Considering whether these laws are bad or not was one of the very things in contention, stating it's OK to break them because they’re bad does beg the question.
posted by ed\26h at 11:48 AM on June 30, 2004
I bought the CD, I should be able to listen to it on all my devices.
What makes you say this?
posted by ed\26h at 12:06 PM on June 30, 2004
What makes you say this?
posted by ed\26h at 12:06 PM on June 30, 2004
Again, to state that it's OK to break these laws because they are bad laws, begs the question.
So, ed, by your logic, laws that allowed white men to own black people as slaves were good laws simply because they were laws. And that those who worked for say the Underground Railroad should have upheld those laws simply because they were the law rather than deciding that it was wrong to hold another human being as a slave.
And laws like ones that were set up to disenfranchise people (oh, say, poll tax laws) should have stayed on the books and people should have just done what they were told because, well, you know, it's the law, dude.
Or for that matter the US should have stayed a colony under a tyrannical king because, well, the king makes the laws, and it would be wrong to say, rise up and throw off the shackles of tyranny, well, because, like, it's the law.
Or lastly, perhaps I am expected to tell my wife not to provide me with oral sex because it is against the law in my state. I wouldn't want to go and break the law when it is so obvious that it is a law meant to...err...um, well, its the law.
Wow. I am so glad that is clear now.
posted by terrapin at 12:09 PM on June 30, 2004
So, ed, by your logic, laws that allowed white men to own black people as slaves were good laws simply because they were laws. And that those who worked for say the Underground Railroad should have upheld those laws simply because they were the law rather than deciding that it was wrong to hold another human being as a slave.
And laws like ones that were set up to disenfranchise people (oh, say, poll tax laws) should have stayed on the books and people should have just done what they were told because, well, you know, it's the law, dude.
Or for that matter the US should have stayed a colony under a tyrannical king because, well, the king makes the laws, and it would be wrong to say, rise up and throw off the shackles of tyranny, well, because, like, it's the law.
Or lastly, perhaps I am expected to tell my wife not to provide me with oral sex because it is against the law in my state. I wouldn't want to go and break the law when it is so obvious that it is a law meant to...err...um, well, its the law.
Wow. I am so glad that is clear now.
posted by terrapin at 12:09 PM on June 30, 2004
Firstly, I don't believe the burden of proof is on me as I have no need to prove anything. I merely want to form a reasoned opinion on these matters.
The question answered was not the question posed: What makes you believe that since you have purchased a CD you should be able to listen to it on all your devices?
It's quite besides the point, but quite how someone can believe that a program which does not replicate, intends no damage and records no arbitrary information is a virus, worm or spyware seems totally extraordinary.
Do you believe though, that a record label et al has a legal or moral responsibility to ensure that the CDs they sell are playable on all devices?
posted by ed\26h at 1:19 PM on June 30, 2004
The question answered was not the question posed: What makes you believe that since you have purchased a CD you should be able to listen to it on all your devices?
It's quite besides the point, but quite how someone can believe that a program which does not replicate, intends no damage and records no arbitrary information is a virus, worm or spyware seems totally extraordinary.
Do you believe though, that a record label et al has a legal or moral responsibility to ensure that the CDs they sell are playable on all devices?
posted by ed\26h at 1:19 PM on June 30, 2004
I don't really care about lengthy discussions on immoral/impractical laws and rights and blah dede blah dede blah. I just like breaking laws in a subversive manner.
Breakin the law, breakin the law!
posted by bob sarabia at 2:09 PM on June 30, 2004
Breakin the law, breakin the law!
posted by bob sarabia at 2:09 PM on June 30, 2004
Skallas: Being abusive will not help.
Do you hold then, that any CD sold which does not adhere to the Red Book standard is being sold fraudulently?
posted by ed\26h at 2:11 PM on June 30, 2004
Do you hold then, that any CD sold which does not adhere to the Red Book standard is being sold fraudulently?
posted by ed\26h at 2:11 PM on June 30, 2004
Back to the game, though... why is Rice pegging that tank?
posted by COBRA! at 2:13 PM on June 30, 2004
posted by COBRA! at 2:13 PM on June 30, 2004
Here's why I should be able to listen to it on all my devices: I have a lot of devices with audio-playing capability. It is ludicrous to expect me to purchase multiple copies of something simply because the record company says I gotta.
I can store millions of albums' worth of music on my hard drive, so I should be able to do just that to both preserve my investment and stop me from having to interrupt my work every 45 minutes to swap physical discs. I take good care of my CDs, but if one accidentally falls behind a bookshelf and gets scratched, it's not as good as new. I should be (and I am, under law) allowed to make a backup in case this happens. I shouldn't have to carry my entire CD collection in and out of the car with me on all my errands, although this would probably make the carrying-case industry happy. I don't want to take a huge CD library on a road trip because I don't have the hundreds (thousands, even) of dollars it would take to replace it if it were stolen. I should be able to listen to music I have purchased on an MP3 player, because when I'm running I don't want it to skip, be heavy or drain batteries. It's practical. It's nice to let me do these things.
Businesses should, basically, be nice to their customers. Treating me like a criminal is not nice.
Ideally, I'd like to see mixed-format CDs with both redbook audio tracks and high-quality copyable MP3s stored on them. That would be very nice. I realize, however, this will never happen. But people are going to be sharing the music anyway-- even if they just lend the CD to somebody who MIGHT make a copy-- and hackers and criminals will always find ways around copy protection. Therefore, it exists only to frustrate and annoy legitimate users. People who care what software gets installed on their computer are not going to put up with it just so they can listen to their "audio" CD. What's worse is: who gets to decide what sort of protection to use? Will I soon have a computer bogged down with hundreds of competing anti-piracy applications? Will I have to start different applications depending on what company released the album?
The CD is not a new format. That is where the "bait and switch" argument comes in. An audio CD that installs stupid crap without asking automatically to stop you from doing something you can easily do if you are a hacker who would do such a thing... well, that's a new kind of thing, and it's not what I expect from an audio CD being sold as an audio CD.
My guess, Mr. ed\26h, is that you are either no longer young or have a personal, emotional or moetary investment in digital rights management. Because young people generally get mad about this stuff, and young people will grow up to be old and powerful, and will do things like repeal desperate, wrongheaded laws.
Try rounding up everybody with an iPod that has an unlicensed, unpurchased MP3 on it and taking their iPods away. There will be blood in the streets.
posted by kevspace at 3:29 PM on June 30, 2004
I can store millions of albums' worth of music on my hard drive, so I should be able to do just that to both preserve my investment and stop me from having to interrupt my work every 45 minutes to swap physical discs. I take good care of my CDs, but if one accidentally falls behind a bookshelf and gets scratched, it's not as good as new. I should be (and I am, under law) allowed to make a backup in case this happens. I shouldn't have to carry my entire CD collection in and out of the car with me on all my errands, although this would probably make the carrying-case industry happy. I don't want to take a huge CD library on a road trip because I don't have the hundreds (thousands, even) of dollars it would take to replace it if it were stolen. I should be able to listen to music I have purchased on an MP3 player, because when I'm running I don't want it to skip, be heavy or drain batteries. It's practical. It's nice to let me do these things.
Businesses should, basically, be nice to their customers. Treating me like a criminal is not nice.
Ideally, I'd like to see mixed-format CDs with both redbook audio tracks and high-quality copyable MP3s stored on them. That would be very nice. I realize, however, this will never happen. But people are going to be sharing the music anyway-- even if they just lend the CD to somebody who MIGHT make a copy-- and hackers and criminals will always find ways around copy protection. Therefore, it exists only to frustrate and annoy legitimate users. People who care what software gets installed on their computer are not going to put up with it just so they can listen to their "audio" CD. What's worse is: who gets to decide what sort of protection to use? Will I soon have a computer bogged down with hundreds of competing anti-piracy applications? Will I have to start different applications depending on what company released the album?
The CD is not a new format. That is where the "bait and switch" argument comes in. An audio CD that installs stupid crap without asking automatically to stop you from doing something you can easily do if you are a hacker who would do such a thing... well, that's a new kind of thing, and it's not what I expect from an audio CD being sold as an audio CD.
My guess, Mr. ed\26h, is that you are either no longer young or have a personal, emotional or moetary investment in digital rights management. Because young people generally get mad about this stuff, and young people will grow up to be old and powerful, and will do things like repeal desperate, wrongheaded laws.
Try rounding up everybody with an iPod that has an unlicensed, unpurchased MP3 on it and taking their iPods away. There will be blood in the streets.
posted by kevspace at 3:29 PM on June 30, 2004
ed:
Well, not just to me but to rational persons. A license model on a physical item would literally serve no purpose whereas it does for intellectual property.
To some rational persons, I'm sure. Not me. From where I sit, it looks like I maximize my personal utility function by flagrantly ignoring any such license. It's totally unenforcable and it's irritating. Why should I?
stating it's OK to break them because they’re bad does beg the question.
No, it still doesn't. The proposition:
IF a law is "bad" THEN it is OK to break it.
is merely an implication, which you are free to accept or reject, but it's no fallacy.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:57 PM on June 30, 2004
Well, not just to me but to rational persons. A license model on a physical item would literally serve no purpose whereas it does for intellectual property.
To some rational persons, I'm sure. Not me. From where I sit, it looks like I maximize my personal utility function by flagrantly ignoring any such license. It's totally unenforcable and it's irritating. Why should I?
stating it's OK to break them because they’re bad does beg the question.
No, it still doesn't. The proposition:
IF a law is "bad" THEN it is OK to break it.
is merely an implication, which you are free to accept or reject, but it's no fallacy.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:57 PM on June 30, 2004
I bought the CD, I should be able to listen to it on all my devices.
What makes you say this?
I have my finger on the shift key. No power in the 'verse can stop me...
posted by inpHilltr8r at 4:50 PM on June 30, 2004
What makes you say this?
I have my finger on the shift key. No power in the 'verse can stop me...
posted by inpHilltr8r at 4:50 PM on June 30, 2004
Unless the Beastie Boys are like Menudo, that is, have rotating members (!), wouldn't they all be like in their 40s?
posted by kablam at 5:00 PM on June 30, 2004
posted by kablam at 5:00 PM on June 30, 2004
Sonofsamian: The simple conditional "IF a law is 'bad' THEN it is OK to break it" is not what I am referring to. The conclusion that these laws are bad in the first place is, partly at least, what is being debated. To rely on its truth as a justification for breaking such laws begs the question.
Terrapin: See above; the idea that such a claim is fallacious means, ironically, that it is not safe to draw any logical conclusion from it. Much less the ones you suggest.
Kevspace: You have simply listed the consequences of not having a right as opposed to why you believe that you should have it. My motives for holding my position, even if the ones you suggest were accurate (which they are not), are quite irrelevant to the truth value of my arguments. However, as I have said, I have no formal position on the issue and only wish to form a reasoned one.
InpHilltr8tr: While I understand your post to be flippant, it does raise an important issue. Namely that some believe if they cannot be stopped from doing something they are justified in doing it; which they are not necessarily.
posted by ed\26h at 1:23 AM on July 1, 2004
Terrapin: See above; the idea that such a claim is fallacious means, ironically, that it is not safe to draw any logical conclusion from it. Much less the ones you suggest.
Kevspace: You have simply listed the consequences of not having a right as opposed to why you believe that you should have it. My motives for holding my position, even if the ones you suggest were accurate (which they are not), are quite irrelevant to the truth value of my arguments. However, as I have said, I have no formal position on the issue and only wish to form a reasoned one.
InpHilltr8tr: While I understand your post to be flippant, it does raise an important issue. Namely that some believe if they cannot be stopped from doing something they are justified in doing it; which they are not necessarily.
posted by ed\26h at 1:23 AM on July 1, 2004
ed, Begging the question is using a circular chain of inference, which I still fail to see anyone in this thread do.
The conclusion that these laws are bad in the first place is, partly at least, what is being debated
A: These laws are bad.
And my own proposition:
B: If a law is bad, it is ok to break it.
To rely on its truth as a justification for breaking such laws begs the question.
No, it is merely the acceptance of statements A and B. If you accept A and B, you must accept that it is ok to break these laws. If you reject either of them, then you need not do so, although you may yet find another justification for breaking the laws. Nowhere in this chain of reasoning is there any circularity.
I apologize if I'm just being dense, but begging the question, has a specific meaning as I understand it; it may be that you are using the phrase in a broader sense than I have encountered it.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:37 AM on July 1, 2004
The conclusion that these laws are bad in the first place is, partly at least, what is being debated
A: These laws are bad.
And my own proposition:
B: If a law is bad, it is ok to break it.
To rely on its truth as a justification for breaking such laws begs the question.
No, it is merely the acceptance of statements A and B. If you accept A and B, you must accept that it is ok to break these laws. If you reject either of them, then you need not do so, although you may yet find another justification for breaking the laws. Nowhere in this chain of reasoning is there any circularity.
I apologize if I'm just being dense, but begging the question, has a specific meaning as I understand it; it may be that you are using the phrase in a broader sense than I have encountered it.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:37 AM on July 1, 2004
Well that basically all looks right to be honest. But as A is in question and B relies on A's truth, we have to accept the truth of the conclusion (A) before we can accept the premise (B).
posted by ed\26h at 9:28 AM on July 1, 2004
posted by ed\26h at 9:28 AM on July 1, 2004
« Older Ring... ring... ring... oh nevermind | ... and so everyday at dawn the Twin Pushers... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Keyser Soze at 8:16 PM on June 29, 2004