Of course. But again, the movement toward content-libraries is the right direction.
I mean, it's a pipe dream. But it's a pipe-dream reliant on re-defining economic "truths" which are only truths because current business models are built upon them. It's circular.
Well, some things are moving towards content libraries with some lockdowns. Kind of the "network TV" model.
But not everything. You still pay for computer software and newer movies and music. Or, well, you're supposed to do so. And it's impossible to imagine that these expensive-to-create forms of media could survive under an ad-revenue supported model.
And maybe some GNU types are fully satisfied with their non-commercial software and Nethacks and Battles of Wesnoth and hobbyist-created Linux distros and sub-indie free music and any form of media made on a shoestring.
But it's not for everyone and it's hard to see how paring produced media down to the recreational hobbyist level is advancing society and culture at large.
Well, it has a lot to do with the fact that copyright, etc., isn't designed to help content-creators, but to lock-down markets. I support musicians by buying merch direct or attending performances. I support authors by disseminating reviews, word-of-mouth: "marketing".
I bought a friend's mother's book recently, and she got all happy that my $20 purchase netted her $0.23 in royalty.
Anyhow, it's not as though these bandwidth-intensive operations or massive illegal torrents (which are, let's face it, the very center of the "net neutrality" movement)
A lot more to it than that.
yeah?
IPs would like to charge tyou according to the quantity of data and the reliability of the network. Given that they have to build and maintain the infrastructure that allows for this, i don't really see how this is unreasonable.
I guess I don't see the obvious counterpoint.
It's about the fact that it creates an undue burden on low-income individuals to remain competitive in the current environment. Ever tried to find a job without internet in the last 5 years?
low-end internet usage would be much cheaper if it were allowed to be metered or prioritized.
like
if you are paying for internet to search for jobs and send resumes, you are subsidizing the guy who's constantly pumping torrents over his connection. you two are paying the same amount.
you are subsizing the small businesses who aren't paying for their own servers.
the two issues are : a) piracy and b) data volume. I don't see how either is defensible and the real cause motivating the movement combines both of them.
Irond Will on
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
91% seems awfully high to me even for someone making near 2 million. That's absurd. That's practically punishing the rich if you ask me.
Of course, I don't know why I'm even bothering with that opinion here. While the rich don't pay their fair share, I think it's safe to say that there seems to exist two opinions with little in between.
Either you're far right and think the rich are horribly abused, or you're far left and think that the rich don't deserve to be rich and are automatically put in the same hate pile as cops and religion
Anyhow, it's not as though these bandwidth-intensive operations or massive illegal torrents (which are, let's face it, the very center of the "net neutrality" movement)
A lot more to it than that.
yeah?
IPs would like to charge tyou according to the quantity of data and the reliability of the network. Given that they have to build and maintain the infrastructure that allows for this, i don't really see how this is unreasonable.
I guess I don't see the obvious counterpoint.
It's about the fact that it creates an undue burden on low-income individuals to remain competitive in the current environment. Ever tried to find a job without internet in the last 5 years?
low-end internet usage would be much cheaper if it were allowed to be metered or prioritized.
like
if you are paying for internet to search for jobs and send resumes, you are subsidizing the guy who's constantly pumping torrents over his connection. you two are paying the same amount.
except that people tend to use the internet for more than one thing
Anyhow, it's not as though these bandwidth-intensive operations or massive illegal torrents (which are, let's face it, the very center of the "net neutrality" movement)
A lot more to it than that.
Nah, the Pirate Party just wants to download shit for free.
Even though the whole thing got more or less kicked off by a loudmouth AT&T CEO being like "Why should I let these guys use my pipes for free?" or something to that effect.
Edit: "These guys" in the scenario being Interweb Companies. Even though they pay for their internet access. He thought maybe they should have to pay because all these people accessing them were going through this guys network and he's all about some double dipping.
Because most of these ISPs are giant fucking assholes, and even though their infrastructures are subsidized by the taxpayers, they think it's super cool attempt bullshit payschemes that charge people twice for the same thing. Even though this exact type of oversight has already gone through for everything from phone companies to taverns in the way before times. The long long ago.
It's not double dipping, it's tripple dipping. I pay once for my service as a monthly fee. The content providers pay once per gig for their connection and then they want to charge me a tier service on top of it. The fallacy that content providers aren't paying is wrong. The reality is that level 3 providers don't want Google playing in their space. It's more about anti-competition then an inability to make a profit.
the two issues are : a) piracy and b) data volume. I don't see how either is defensible and the real cause motivating the movement combines both of them.
That just seems to cut off your nose to spite your face. Mass-torrenters are a minority of internet users.
Not to mention that companies like Comcast have essential monopolies, especially in more rural areas like W. Mass. We pay what they say we pay, there really isn't much more to it. They do what they want, and we go along.
The whole thing is much more complex, and copyright infringement is a small but easily strawman'd defense.
91% seems awfully high to me even for someone making near 2 million. That's absurd. That's practically punishing the rich if you ask me.
Of course, I don't know why I'm even bothering with that opinion here. While the rich don't pay their fair share, I think it's safe to say that there seems to exist two opinions with little in between.
Either you're far right and think the rich are horribly abused, or you're far left and think that the rich don't deserve to be rich and are automatically put in the same hate pile as cops and religion
i agree 91% is ridiculously high (thats why it shocked me that that existed in the USA)
but i also think its silly that there aren't more different levels of tax brackets
there are people out there making 300 million dollars a year regularly
surely they should pay a little more than someone making 300 something thousand a year because like... at that point it ain't no thing
but when you're making say 1-3 million and under it is a thing
Shazkar Shadowstorm on
poo
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
My problem with paying per volume is now with the advent of legitimate methods of media procurement (Itunes, Steam, Netflix Instant), I can be using my bandwidth legitimately and suddenly I am supposed to pay..extra? No. I can't do that.
Well, it has a lot to do with the fact that copyright, etc., isn't designed to help content-creators, but to lock-down markets. I support musicians by buying merch direct or attending performances. I support authors by disseminating reviews, word-of-mouth: "marketing".
I bought a friend's mother's book recently, and she got all happy that my $20 purchase netted her $0.23 in royalty.
well, that's ultimately a problem with the book publishing industry, not the idea of copyright. royalties should be higher, but the book companies are contracting and their business model isn't really holding up with the collapse of a reading population.
ultimately, authors need to sell books. they do not make money when people read their books for free.
Well, it has a lot to do with the fact that copyright, etc., isn't designed to help content-creators, but to lock-down markets. I support musicians by buying merch direct or attending performances. I support authors by disseminating reviews, word-of-mouth: "marketing".
I bought a friend's mother's book recently, and she got all happy that my $20 purchase netted her $0.23 in royalty.
well, that's ultimately a problem with the book publishing industry, not the idea of copyright. royalties should be higher, but the book companies are contracting and their business model isn't really holding up with the collapse of a reading population.
ultimately, authors need to sell books. they do not make money when people read their books for free.
They make money, if you're talking about books that are worth-while, by their day job teaching/researching, etc.
Blockbuster novels are also the minority, though that's what we tend to look at when we look at publishing.
| Zinnar on most things | Avatar by Blameless Cleric
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
I don't see net neutrality as being about piracy at all. Piracy will always find a way to survive. Maybe by masquerading as some other kind of traffic, or running over secure conections, or maybe just by taking a slight speed hit. It's not like even the biggest personal pirates saturate their connections 24/7 anyway (maybe people running things like seedboxes do but they're a huge minority).
Net neutrality is much, much more about ISPs wanting to prioritize basic services like TV and phone over the data network and squeeze out competitors. Piracy is just a distraction to gain political support by piggybacking on the copyright lobby's efforts.
Edit: It's worth mentioning that metered plans are perfectly allowable while maintaining a neutral network. You just have to be sure to meter all kinds of traffic the same.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
well, that's ultimately a problem with the book publishing industry, not the idea of copyright. royalties should be higher, but the book companies are contracting and their business model isn't really holding up with the collapse of a reading population.
ultimately, authors need to sell books. they do not make money when people read their books for free.
And they're getting really pissed at Amazon, who demanded that nothing on the Kindle should cost more than 10 dollars, in order to attract people.
A new hardcover easily costs twice that. Incidentally, the author also gets twice the money from a hardcover sale.
inde presses are (sometimes) now respectable businesses, with profits and investments and employees and managers.
whereas some media makers do things like put all their stuff out for free on the interbutts and i guess try to fund their efforts with ads or else just beg for people to send them money
Well, it has a lot to do with the fact that copyright, etc., isn't designed to help content-creators, but to lock-down markets. I support musicians by buying merch direct or attending performances. I support authors by disseminating reviews, word-of-mouth: "marketing".
I bought a friend's mother's book recently, and she got all happy that my $20 purchase netted her $0.23 in royalty.
well, that's ultimately a problem with the book publishing industry, not the idea of copyright. royalties should be higher, but the book companies are contracting and their business model isn't really holding up with the collapse of a reading population.
ultimately, authors need to sell books. they do not make money when people read their books for free.
I'm pretty sure more books are a being sold than before and that that figure is currently rising.
Argument falls apart.
Also, hardly anyone downloads books and reads them on their computer - that's painful and annoying, and printing out said books would be a massive hassle.
91% seems awfully high to me even for someone making near 2 million. That's absurd. That's practically punishing the rich if you ask me.
Of course, I don't know why I'm even bothering with that opinion here. While the rich don't pay their fair share, I think it's safe to say that there seems to exist two opinions with little in between.
Either you're far right and think the rich are horribly abused, or you're far left and think that the rich don't deserve to be rich and are automatically put in the same hate pile as cops and religion
i agree 91% is ridiculously high (thats why it shocked me that that existed in the USA)
but i also think its silly that there aren't more different levels of tax brackets
there are people out there making 300 million dollars a year regularly
surely they should pay a little more than someone making 300 something thousand a year because like... at that point it ain't no thing
but when you're making say 1-3 million and under it is a thing
I'm a conservative and I agree with this. It does even more damage because when somebody actual does want to tax the rich more, the are hitting the 300k people way harder than the 300 million people. If we had more tax brackets, we could tax the mega-rich more easily. Of course that would net us less money overall than just saying everyone over 300k is super-rich and taxing the shit out of all of them, but it's the right thing to do.
inde presses are (sometimes) now respectable businesses, with profits and investments and employees and managers.
whereas some media makers do things like put all their stuff out for free on the interbutts and i guess try to fund their efforts with ads or else just beg for people to send them money
i guess that's what i meant by sub-indie.
I miss mail-order distros... Now they're all huge record labels akin to the big-boys (and usually, at this point, with the same goals and funding sources).
Anyhow, it's not as though these bandwidth-intensive operations or massive illegal torrents (which are, let's face it, the very center of the "net neutrality" movement)
A lot more to it than that.
yeah?
IPs would like to charge tyou according to the quantity of data and the reliability of the network. Given that they have to build and maintain the infrastructure that allows for this, i don't really see how this is unreasonable.
I guess I don't see the obvious counterpoint.
It's about the fact that it creates an undue burden on low-income individuals to remain competitive in the current environment. Ever tried to find a job without internet in the last 5 years?
low-end internet usage would be much cheaper if it were allowed to be metered or prioritized.
like
if you are paying for internet to search for jobs and send resumes, you are subsidizing the guy who's constantly pumping torrents over his connection. you two are paying the same amount.
you are subsizing the small businesses who aren't paying for their own servers.
the two issues are : a) piracy and b) data volume. I don't see how either is defensible and the real cause motivating the movement combines both of them.
Metered billing doesn't have to do with net neutrality until you start getting into ridiculously inflated price per mb(or whatever measurement) to the point where the FCC might cap it. So it doesn't have to do with net neutrality unless the ISP decides it wants to institute metered billing so that it can overcharge everyone to the point where regulatory bodies find that they have to get involved.
It doesn't have to do with net neutrality. The biggest (arguably) part of net neutrality is ISPs getting regulated as Common Carriers which is what they fucking are. They'd like to pretend they're not, but they're transporting goods only because they've been subsidized and licensed by the government and there must be oversight when it comes to how they handle the bits and bytes that go across their lines. So that they don't go doublecharging people (like some have mentioned/wanted/tried to) and so they don't go mitigating a competitor's traffic in favor of their own (think netflix vs some ISPs bullshit movie thing they decide to release on the internet, I'm looking at you, comcast.
There are other elements, but that's the chief one on the table, to my mind.
Meaning the subsidies go to improving the infrastructure and making certain that the monopolies and duopolies price themselves fairly so that everyday joe can access this amazing resource for information/employment/economic stimulation.
Edit: Not sure how that last bit got placed out of order, my apologies. It still sort of makes sense.
It's about the fact that it creates an undue burden on low-income individuals to remain competitive in the current environment. Ever tried to find a job without internet in the last 5 years?
low-end internet usage would be much cheaper if it were allowed to be metered or prioritized.
like
if you are paying for internet to search for jobs and send resumes, you are subsidizing the guy who's constantly pumping torrents over his connection. you two are paying the same amount.
except that people tend to use the internet for more than one thing
the internet's kind of famous for that
having multiple uses
sure
but Crow's assertion was that low-income people would be hobbled in their job hunts by per-use cost structures for internets
and i pointed out that these poor people would be paying less for the kind of net use he's talking about under a metered, non "net neutral" system.
It's about the fact that it creates an undue burden on low-income individuals to remain competitive in the current environment. Ever tried to find a job without internet in the last 5 years?
low-end internet usage would be much cheaper if it were allowed to be metered or prioritized.
like
if you are paying for internet to search for jobs and send resumes, you are subsidizing the guy who's constantly pumping torrents over his connection. you two are paying the same amount.
except that people tend to use the internet for more than one thing
the internet's kind of famous for that
having multiple uses
sure
but Crow's assertion was that low-income people would be hobbled in their job hunts by per-use cost structures for internets
and i pointed out that these poor people would be paying less for the kind of net use he's talking about under a metered, non "net neutral" system.
No, no, Will.
I argue that low-income households get hobbled by lack of competition, non-supply and demand pricing and the current strategy to attempt to monetize everything.
EDIT: I actually think that the current models are something like $60/month + overuseage.
It's about the fact that it creates an undue burden on low-income individuals to remain competitive in the current environment. Ever tried to find a job without internet in the last 5 years?
low-end internet usage would be much cheaper if it were allowed to be metered or prioritized.
like
if you are paying for internet to search for jobs and send resumes, you are subsidizing the guy who's constantly pumping torrents over his connection. you two are paying the same amount.
except that people tend to use the internet for more than one thing
the internet's kind of famous for that
having multiple uses
sure
but Crow's assertion was that low-income people would be hobbled in their job hunts by per-use cost structures for internets
and i pointed out that these poor people would be paying less for the kind of net use he's talking about under a metered, non "net neutral" system.
What? No. Having volume limited monthly internet subscriptions are still net-neutral. If you're going to use the internet for email, chat, and job searching/CVs you might get a 5 gb per month subscription because that's all fairly low volume.
It ceases being net-neutral when the ISPs say "so we see you been using hulu/iplayer quite a bit there. Here, take this additional bill for using that site." Paying for a higher/unlimited volume subscription is not equivalent to this.
91% seems awfully high to me even for someone making near 2 million. That's absurd. That's practically punishing the rich if you ask me.
Of course, I don't know why I'm even bothering with that opinion here. While the rich don't pay their fair share, I think it's safe to say that there seems to exist two opinions with little in between.
Either you're far right and think the rich are horribly abused, or you're far left and think that the rich don't deserve to be rich and are automatically put in the same hate pile as cops and religion
i agree 91% is ridiculously high (thats why it shocked me that that existed in the USA)
but i also think its silly that there aren't more different levels of tax brackets
there are people out there making 300 million dollars a year regularly
surely they should pay a little more than someone making 300 something thousand a year because like... at that point it ain't no thing
but when you're making say 1-3 million and under it is a thing
I'm a conservative and I agree with this. It does even more damage because when somebody actual does want to tax the rich more, the are hitting the 300k people way harder than the 300 million people. If we had more tax brackets, we could tax the mega-rich more easily. Of course that would net us less money overall than just saying everyone over 300k is super-rich and taxing the shit out of all of them, but it's the right thing to do.
Yeah basically. The system of tax brackets I do not think is fair to people making over 300k but under super rich people. More divisions means they can do things more fairly. Because people making 300k are not in even remotely the same situation as people flying around in jets and riding on yachts.
Posts
I download stuff
of questionable legality
period
it is not my manifest destiny or whatever the fuck to watch this movie I was just lazy
Well, it has a lot to do with the fact that copyright, etc., isn't designed to help content-creators, but to lock-down markets. I support musicians by buying merch direct or attending performances. I support authors by disseminating reviews, word-of-mouth: "marketing".
I bought a friend's mother's book recently, and she got all happy that my $20 purchase netted her $0.23 in royalty.
I don't think I have a "moral right", but I do have respect for practical systems of supply and demand which paint a far different picture.
low-end internet usage would be much cheaper if it were allowed to be metered or prioritized.
like
if you are paying for internet to search for jobs and send resumes, you are subsidizing the guy who's constantly pumping torrents over his connection. you two are paying the same amount.
you are subsizing the small businesses who aren't paying for their own servers.
the two issues are : a) piracy and b) data volume. I don't see how either is defensible and the real cause motivating the movement combines both of them.
Of course, I don't know why I'm even bothering with that opinion here. While the rich don't pay their fair share, I think it's safe to say that there seems to exist two opinions with little in between.
Either you're far right and think the rich are horribly abused, or you're far left and think that the rich don't deserve to be rich and are automatically put in the same hate pile as cops and religion
But if you want me to pay more for certain ones and zeroes than other ones and zeroes? Hell no.
except that people tend to use the internet for more than one thing
the internet's kind of famous for that
having multiple uses
I am perfectly fine with a volume subscription as long as one of the option available to me is unlimited volume and still fairly affordable.
This exists in the UK afaik.
It's not double dipping, it's tripple dipping. I pay once for my service as a monthly fee. The content providers pay once per gig for their connection and then they want to charge me a tier service on top of it. The fallacy that content providers aren't paying is wrong. The reality is that level 3 providers don't want Google playing in their space. It's more about anti-competition then an inability to make a profit.
That just seems to cut off your nose to spite your face. Mass-torrenters are a minority of internet users.
Not to mention that companies like Comcast have essential monopolies, especially in more rural areas like W. Mass. We pay what they say we pay, there really isn't much more to it. They do what they want, and we go along.
The whole thing is much more complex, and copyright infringement is a small but easily strawman'd defense.
That goes without saying.
i agree 91% is ridiculously high (thats why it shocked me that that existed in the USA)
but i also think its silly that there aren't more different levels of tax brackets
there are people out there making 300 million dollars a year regularly
surely they should pay a little more than someone making 300 something thousand a year because like... at that point it ain't no thing
but when you're making say 1-3 million and under it is a thing
well, that's ultimately a problem with the book publishing industry, not the idea of copyright. royalties should be higher, but the book companies are contracting and their business model isn't really holding up with the collapse of a reading population.
ultimately, authors need to sell books. they do not make money when people read their books for free.
we certaintly do not
why would they do that it'll just go through him
but maybe its a non-normal move
They make money, if you're talking about books that are worth-while, by their day job teaching/researching, etc.
Blockbuster novels are also the minority, though that's what we tend to look at when we look at publishing.
*in america
note that i don't know how this holds up outside of here
Net neutrality is much, much more about ISPs wanting to prioritize basic services like TV and phone over the data network and squeeze out competitors. Piracy is just a distraction to gain political support by piggybacking on the copyright lobby's efforts.
Edit: It's worth mentioning that metered plans are perfectly allowable while maintaining a neutral network. You just have to be sure to meter all kinds of traffic the same.
And they're getting really pissed at Amazon, who demanded that nothing on the Kindle should cost more than 10 dollars, in order to attract people.
A new hardcover easily costs twice that. Incidentally, the author also gets twice the money from a hardcover sale.
And the providers spend soooo much money to keep it this way. A lot of that money comes from subsidy.
inde presses are (sometimes) now respectable businesses, with profits and investments and employees and managers.
whereas some media makers do things like put all their stuff out for free on the interbutts and i guess try to fund their efforts with ads or else just beg for people to send them money
i guess that's what i meant by sub-indie.
I'm pretty sure more books are a being sold than before and that that figure is currently rising.
Argument falls apart.
Also, hardly anyone downloads books and reads them on their computer - that's painful and annoying, and printing out said books would be a massive hassle.
I'm a conservative and I agree with this. It does even more damage because when somebody actual does want to tax the rich more, the are hitting the 300k people way harder than the 300 million people. If we had more tax brackets, we could tax the mega-rich more easily. Of course that would net us less money overall than just saying everyone over 300k is super-rich and taxing the shit out of all of them, but it's the right thing to do.
I miss mail-order distros... Now they're all huge record labels akin to the big-boys (and usually, at this point, with the same goals and funding sources).
If sold in a book store I'm guessing a lot
Metered billing doesn't have to do with net neutrality until you start getting into ridiculously inflated price per mb(or whatever measurement) to the point where the FCC might cap it. So it doesn't have to do with net neutrality unless the ISP decides it wants to institute metered billing so that it can overcharge everyone to the point where regulatory bodies find that they have to get involved.
It doesn't have to do with net neutrality. The biggest (arguably) part of net neutrality is ISPs getting regulated as Common Carriers which is what they fucking are. They'd like to pretend they're not, but they're transporting goods only because they've been subsidized and licensed by the government and there must be oversight when it comes to how they handle the bits and bytes that go across their lines. So that they don't go doublecharging people (like some have mentioned/wanted/tried to) and so they don't go mitigating a competitor's traffic in favor of their own (think netflix vs some ISPs bullshit movie thing they decide to release on the internet, I'm looking at you, comcast.
There are other elements, but that's the chief one on the table, to my mind.
Meaning the subsidies go to improving the infrastructure and making certain that the monopolies and duopolies price themselves fairly so that everyday joe can access this amazing resource for information/employment/economic stimulation.
Edit: Not sure how that last bit got placed out of order, my apologies. It still sort of makes sense.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
sure
but Crow's assertion was that low-income people would be hobbled in their job hunts by per-use cost structures for internets
and i pointed out that these poor people would be paying less for the kind of net use he's talking about under a metered, non "net neutral" system.
You mean a Universal Constructor? That shit's gonna be expensive. Especially when you have to replace the platinum/gold cartridges.
No, no, Will.
I argue that low-income households get hobbled by lack of competition, non-supply and demand pricing and the current strategy to attempt to monetize everything.
EDIT: I actually think that the current models are something like $60/month + overuseage.
What? No. Having volume limited monthly internet subscriptions are still net-neutral. If you're going to use the internet for email, chat, and job searching/CVs you might get a 5 gb per month subscription because that's all fairly low volume.
It ceases being net-neutral when the ISPs say "so we see you been using hulu/iplayer quite a bit there. Here, take this additional bill for using that site." Paying for a higher/unlimited volume subscription is not equivalent to this.
Yes, more or less.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
Yeah basically. The system of tax brackets I do not think is fair to people making over 300k but under super rich people. More divisions means they can do things more fairly. Because people making 300k are not in even remotely the same situation as people flying around in jets and riding on yachts.
:^:
Reinstalling Steam does that.