Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Intellectual Monopolies violate property rights (Score 1) 215

There are plenty of ways to make money creating content without monopoly.

Sure there are. The trouble is, every single one you listed has serious drawbacks compared to the current model.

Just like before recordings actors and singers earned money from live performances.

Yes, they did. Plenty still do, though for most of them it's beer money rather than a career.

But before recordings you didn't need a sound engineer in a studio with a mixing desk and a lot of expensive equipment. Who pays the sound engineer in your world? Or the composer of the symphony? Or all those people whose names come after the actors when the film credits roll? Your model might work for the latest production of Hamlet. It isn't going to produce Fast and Furious 8.

if you want to make movies you have to keep them under your control in a theater

That damages the experience for the majority of viewers, who no longer have the option to enjoy the movie in the comfort of their own home.

insert ads or product placements

Because an ad-funded internet is so good that people invented ad-blockers, and blatant product placement doesn't in any way reduce the enjoyment of TV shows.

fund through crowd sourcing

This is one of the more promising ideas on your list. However, right now, even the most successful projects on Kickstarter and the like are still coming in with an order of magnitude or two less funding than comparable projects generate through a copyright-based system. When GTA VI comes along, do you think it's going to be supported by a successful crowdfunding campaign?

or try to come up with digital distribution easy enough that people will pay instead of copying

People like stuff for free. I'd agree that some people rip content illegally just because of the convenience factor -- films out in theatres before you can buy physical media or stream a legal download, DRM, and so on. But the idea that the only reason people don't pay for stuff they can download illegally for free is because it's inconvenient is implausible.

Do you know what does work, very reliably, by your arguments about violating property rights? Locking down the Internet and limiting devices you can legally buy/sell/own in the first place to those that play nicely with your closed ecosystem.

The trouble is, the "information wants to be free" crowd think this is a joke and can never happen, and that cute sound-bites like "censorship is damage and the Internet routes around it" will overcome the will of the billion-dollar infrastructure companies that actually produce a lot of popular content and the governments with laws and police and jails. They will not, and all you're doing is pushing those powerful organisations towards systems where -- as, ironically, you suggested -- content providers will keep everything under their control. The only way to enjoy any content will be to rent it and access it via limited mechanisms.

Comment: Re:More than PR (Score 1) 234

by PopeRatzo (#49748355) Attached to: What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

How exactly would raising funds for his political campaign help him personally?

He can donate the money to his Rand PAC ( or just let it sit there for future elections. He becomes more influential by virtue of that money. He can use it to generate support for a bid for certain Senate committee positions. When you have money to distribute to other political purposes, you have the juice that creates power. Most important, he can do what his father did and just make personal money by selling his campaign donor mailing list.

Did you know even retired politicians can keep their campaign fundraising going? They can keep fundraising even after retired and can use that money for other politicians political purposes.

Comment: Re:Thank you - just PR for his presidential run. (Score 1) 234

by PopeRatzo (#49748269) Attached to: What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

There are PODCASTS with larger audiences than MSNBC, dude.

Now that you mention it, Rand Paul's filibuster made it to MSNBC, too.

He got his facetime on the TV and that's all that matters.

[note: Rand Paul's filibuster is actually the lead story on right now]

Comment: Re:More than PR (Score 1) 234

by PopeRatzo (#49748211) Attached to: What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

The only problem with this story is that pandering to "bitcoin dudebros" is widely known to not be a way to electoral success, and if Paul is really just a shrewd grifter that you paint him, he knows that, as well.

Paul doesn't expect electoral success at the Presidential level. He expects fund-raising success.

Think for a minute of all the presidential candidates who know they're not going to win the nomination, but realize that a lucrative donor list is the next best thing. Rand Paul is one of those. He's building a nice packet for the future.

Comment: Re:More than PR (Score 1) 234

by PopeRatzo (#49747971) Attached to: What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

So while of course some element of it is PR, that is not the core reason as to why he did this.

And you know this how?

You can recognize a public figure's cult status when their followers start to claim they know what's in his heart and mind.

Rand Paul is a grandstander in the Barack Obama mold. He is sound and fury signifies fuck-all but lip-service to a dimwitted ideology that I wonder if he even believes. It's almost as if some consultant told him that the only demographic where he has a chance is bitcoin dudebros and so he has these little events to check off the box.

Comment: Re:It showed a lot (Score 1) 234

by bill_mcgonigle (#49747889) Attached to: What Was the Effect of Rand Paul's 10-Hour "Filibuster"?

Right - but you know who didn't show up? Bernie Sanders (S-VT). He claims to be a civil libertarian but couldn't bother to join the other Democrats who came to support the issue.

I think we know where his masters are on this issue - he's deep into the F-35 fighter jet fiasco; MIC is where his bread is buttered.

Comment: Re:Bring Back Background Play (Score 1) 39

Perhaps now they can bring back background play for mobile devices, so I don't have to stay on the youtube app to listen to music/podcasts/etc posted there.

This was the #1 most-requested feature on the YouTube app since it first appeared. Google *finally* released it - and it's the most expensive in-app purchase ever - you have to pay $120/yr to get it.

At the same time they changed the YouTube ToS to forbid third-party apps from providing the same functionality and aggressively started pursuing legal claims against the developers.

"Don't be Evil", 2015 skin.

Comment: Re:Signals, zoning, and subsidizing transit (Score 1) 803

by Firethorn (#49747403) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax

Actually, you were arguing that all bicyclists should get special treatment under vehicle law by making stop signs into yields for you, based on your personal manner of riding. Turning stops into yields does NOT minimize the hassle for everyone, as I've already explained.

Actually, the problem as you describe is that bicyclists are treating the signs as though they don't exist. They're not treating them as yield signs, they're ignoring them. Changing the law to allow riders to treat stop signs as yield signs would STILL have the described behavior be a violation.

That's a lie. If I ran over you because you blew the stop sign and failed to make the turn you could have easily made at a slower speed, it would go on my driving record, it would impact my insurance rates, and the trial would cost me a lot of money and time. I might even feel a bit of remorse over the accident, but that depends on how many bikers who want special privileges I've talked to recently.

*sigh* That's still nothing compared to being, you know, dead. I'm not much of a physical threat to you.

Also, I was taught when I was growing up that the laws of physics trump the laws of man - IE it's not a good idea to engage in behavior where I'm likely to be run over by a non-careful driver, even if I'd be technically in the correct(and them liable) by the law. I'd rather not be run over, thank you very much. ;)

Second, the traffic laws aren't there just so you aren't a danger to drivers. Pedestrians are involved, and you are a significant danger to them.

... How? Of course, I don't live in an area with significant numbers of them. I avoid them just like I avoid cars. I'm continuously scanning for things to avoid, pedestrians are easy. Well, unless the crowd is too thick, but again, at that point I'm either riding elsewhere or walking.

On the generic tact, I'd think we'd see a lot more injury reports if cyclists were indeed a significant danger to pedestrians.

If you want to argue for a change, you need to admit and accept that your personal habits are irrelevant, just as my personal driving habits are when talking about changed to motor vehicle laws.

Well, you'll actually need to prove that the law is effective then, I guess. Because as you've mentioned, it's being completely non-followed right now. Having the cops enforce being not stupid for a bit might be more effective than trying to keep pushing 'stop means stop! Because bicyclists are ignoring stop signs and risking me run over them!'. I've already told you I'm not going into the intersection if I'm at risk of you running me over. I know quite a few riders that way. I'm sorry that you only remember the idiots, but I can't do anything about them.

Comment: Re:Yes & the sheer amount of existing code/fra (Score 1) 359

by Anonymous Brave Guy (#49747215) Attached to: The Reason For Java's Staying Power: It's Easy To Read

There's a difference between abstracting complexity away; and relying on a cute, obscure, not-quite-feature of a syntax in your program because it saves a few characters.

Of course there is, but at no point have I (or anyone else I've seen in this discussion) suggested doing the latter just to make the code shorter. The point is that there are plenty of languages that can say in one clean, readable line of code what takes half an editor window in Java. I gave some typical examples in my reply to another post.

Comment: Re:Intellectual Monopolies violate property rights (Score 1) 215

Ideas are not scarce. They can be freely reproduced without loss.

Right. The marginal cost of extra copies of information is very low. Unfortunately the initial cost of putting that information together may be extremely high, and if the information is never collected it won't be distributed either.

So we create an economic incentive to encourage that creation and distribution, effectively amortizing the initial development cost over all those who ultimately obtain a copy. This might not be the perfect economic model, but I'm still waiting for anyone to offer a plausible better alternative.

The world is no nursery. - Sigmund Freud