what happens if SOPA passes?

i just thought that was funny, not directed really anywhere

I mean yes data mining leads to targeted advertising, but advertising is advertising, and all of it requires people's attention in order to survive xxp

this thread is a lot more fun after i gave up caring and just decided to watch shakey and frogbs and iatee circle around each in a festive dance of faulty logic and useless generalizations

your welcome

bad spelling, too

i'm not sure how much data mining is actually being sold vs being a scare story for potential future sales. Like where on FB can I go to give them money to target single white guys aged 24 who eat pot noodles and didn't make new friends at Christmas? They let you do that only if you're targetting ads which they will then serve -- they definitely don't return you a list of users to do anything with.

same deal w/google. They mine on your behalf, but they never give you the data. Your only way of interacting with the mining is to buy a display ad

I'm just describing how advertising works. I don't like it but it is what it is.

you consider one piece of 20th century capitalism to be objectively evil but you're sad about the death of another piece of 20th century capitalism, when really they are mixed together and you have to look at the macro picture and not just isolate things you like and don't like.

yes these things are all intertwined.

I'm glad we agree

this just in: if you enjoy buying free range tomatoes you are also required to enjoy purchasing products from big pharm. and firearms.

or am i missing some crucial nuance in your argument here

huh? my argument was that advertising was a big part of a certain business model that shakey's sad to see disappearing, but he also 'hates advertising, man'.

pretty sure those things are totally seperable tho. i like television but do not enjoy advertising on television, it seems like you are saying that i shouldnt be able to like television then.

Indonesia has gone to imaginative extremes to try to stop commuters from illegally riding the roofs of trains – hosing down the scofflaws with red paint, threatening them with dogs and appealing for help from religious leaders.

Now the authorities have an intimidating and possibly even deadly new tactic: Suspending rows of grapefruit-sized concrete balls to rake over the top of trains as they pull out of stations, or when they go through rail crossings.

Authorities hope the balls – which could deliver serious blows to the head – will be enough to deter defiant roof riders.

“We’ve tried just about everything, even putting rolls of barbed wire on the roof, but nothing seems to work,” said Mateta Rizahulhaq, a spokesman for the state-owned railway company PT Kereta Api. “Maybe this will do it.”

Trains that crisscross Indonesia on poorly maintained tracks left behind by Dutch colonizers six decades ago usually are packed with passengers, especially during the rush hour.

Hundreds seeking to escape the overcrowded carriages clamor to the top. Some ride high to avoid paying for a ticket. Others do so because – despite the dangers, with dozens killed or injured every year – “rail surfing” is fun.

The first dozen or so balls were installed Tuesday hundreds of metres from the entrance of a train station just outside the capital, Jakarta. Painted silver, the balls hung by chains from what looked like the frame of a giant soccer goal.

But there was a glitch: the chains were too short, leaving a gap of about 40 centimetres between the balls and the roofs of the passing train carriages. Mr. Rizahulhaq said adjustments would be made.

If successful, the project will be expanded, with balls also set up near railway crossings.

Asked about worries that the balls could hurt or even kill those who defy the roof-riding ban, he insisted that wasn’t really his problem.

“They don’t have to sit on top,” he said. “And we’ve already told them, if the train is full, go to the office. We will be happy to reimburse their tickets.”

The commuters, known as “Atappers” or “Roofers,” meanwhile are hardcore in their determination to stay on top.

“I was really scared when I first heard about these balls,” said Mulyanto, a 27-year-old shopkeeper, who rides between his hometown of Bogor and Jakarta almost every day for work. “It sounds like it could be really dangerous.”

“But I don’t think it’ll last long,” he said. “They’ve tried everything to keep us from riding ... in the end we always win.”

“We like it up there, it’s windy, really nice.”

Many of the roof riders – and regular passengers – say the main problem lies with Indonesia’s dilapidated railway system. There are not enough trains to meet demand, they say. And there are constant delays in service.

“People have jobs! They can’t be late,” said Parto, a trader at the Jakarta stock exchange, who can usually be found sitting inside. “If the train is late, they’ll do whatever they have to.”

Several years ago, paint guns were set up to spray those riding on the top of carriages so authorities could identify and round up the guilty travelers. But roof riders destroyed the equipment soon after. The exhortations of clerics didn’t work. Neither did the dogs.

At one point, police decided to do the expected: arrest the culprits. But their officers were pelted with rocks and they gave up.

no it's more like if you were complaining about the death of the television cable business but were also like "and I wish they would just get rid of all those damn ads"

xp

but ads do not directly subsidise the traditional music industry. i mean if you are trying to say that if you dislike ads you have to reject things that are advertised uh basically you dont get to buy anything?

a festive dance of faulty logic and useless generalizations

board description

the record label biz model involved big companies that paid $ to advertise music so that consumers would decide to spend their $ buying record x or record y. my only point is that it wasn't a small part of the business model shakey's mourning.

xp

there are still a hell of a lot of people willing to pay for content.

― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:25 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

that may be true, but it elides a crucial "at this point." relative to 20-30 years ago and adjusted for inflation, fewer people are willing to regularly shell out substantial sums for books, movies, music, newspapers and magazines. and we're only seeing the tip of the free exchange of informationberg.

yeah but

the record label biz model involved big companies that paid $ to advertise music so that consumers would decide to spend their $ buying record x or record y

otm. i can sort-of see some sorts of business models being cadged together for most of these things, albeit with vastly reduced profits. But for seriously capital-intensive stuff, like big-budget films w/out cgi, i'm not sure how this is going to pan out. xp

right I'm not against advertising xp

that may be true, but it elides a crucial "at this point." relative to 20-30 years ago and adjusted for inflation, fewer people are willing to regularly shell out substantial sums for books, movies, music, newspapers and magazines. and we're only seeing the tip of the free exchange of informationberg.

imo that's rather a pessimistic view. VHS and DVD sales have been enormous despite free-to-air television, music sales have always been strong despite free radio, newspapers have always sold well despite stress press etc. If you provide quality, package it well and make it easy to obtain, many people will always take it over (or alongside) the free equivalent. Yes music, movies, television etc. is easy to grab on demand now, but it's a massive pain in the arse to get content that way, so the opportunity to capitalise on the internet as a distribution medium is still enormous.

btw those who insist torrents are the inevitable future might want to look at the sharp rise of locked down systems like the ipad, and give some thought to how incredibly easy it is to buy content on those things.

Yes music, movies, television etc. is easy to grab on demand now, but it's a massive pain in the arse to get content that way

I accidentally left the word "free" out of this sentence

you are so deluded

lol more like YOU are

you guys still going

All right Shakey, here's a near-future scenario. You're on the sofa and you want to watch Bridesmaids 3. Here are your options:

1. You get up and/or grab your laptop, sift through a few torrent sites (assuming you have the technical knowledge to do so) until you find a copy of Bridesmaids 3 that (a) isn't a screener (b) is in English (c) doesn't have Dutch subtitles and (d) is seeded to 100%, queue it for download, go back to the sofa and cross your fingers that it will play.

2. Without getting off your arse, you press a button on the remote you're already holding and say "show Bridesmaids 3". The telly offers you a clean HD rental for U$4. You say "yes" and you're watching it inside 30 seconds.

If you think option 2 is doomed to failure then frankly you misunderstand how a lot of people work.

^^^otm

well it's sorta the apple-future vs. the google-future

VHS and DVD sales have been enormous despite free-to-air television, music sales have always been strong despite free radio, newspapers have always sold well despite stress press etc.

― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:45 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

btw those who insist torrents are the inevitable future might want to look at the sharp rise of locked down systems like the ipad, and give some thought to how incredibly easy it is to buy content on those things.

― Autumn Almanac (Schlafsack), Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:47 PM (42 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

the latter is a much better point than the former, imo. the internet's information transfer system is different in kind from anything that's ever existed before. VHS, broadcast television and radio aren't apt comparisons.

also, i don't see any good reason to put great faith in "If you provide quality, package it well and make it easy to obtain, many people will always take it over (or alongside) the free equivalent." some people will of course do this, but i don't know that they're going to provide enough revenue to support a thriving entertainment industry. i mean, what's the equivalent case on which your assumption is based? is there anything that people have long paid a lot for that they've long been easily able to get for free in exactly the same form (i.e., without sacrificing perceptible quality)?

Newspapers, p. much.

Water, also.

Here's a slightly-less-near-future scenario. You're on the sofa and you want to watch Bridesmaids 3.

1. You get up and/or grab your device (you only need one), and you face a choice between pushing button A and getting what you want for free and pushing button B and getting exactly the same thing for a few cubits. No appreciable difference in simplicity or time involved.

2. Without getting off your arse, you press a button on the remote and watch Bridesmaids 3 for free. Of course.

Newspapers? There's a big, easily perceptible difference between free papers and those you pay money for. And the ones you pay money for are dying fast.

Water? Yeah, that's a better point, but the market boom for bottled water is a very recent phenomena that's pretty unique. Don't know that we can extrapolate much from it.

re: stet

well people are lazy and will always pay $ for something that makes their life easier, so the bigger question is whether magic easy to use locked down system will always be faster and easier than pirating

is there anything that people have long paid a lot for that they've long been easily able to get for free in exactly the same form (i.e., without sacrificing perceptible quality)?

I would be hesitant to make any comparisons cause what we're talking about is fundamentally different type of economic activity than buying a toothbrush or whatever. or if you wanted an apt comparison it would have to be really weird, like what would you consider 'spread of information w/ zero transaction costs' pre-20th century?

activity than buying a toothbrush or whatever = activity like buying a toothbrush or whatever

what's the equivalent case on which your assumption is based? is there anything that people have long paid a lot for that they've long been easily able to get for free in exactly the same form (i.e., without sacrificing perceptible quality)?

Not that I can think of. Copies were always of lesser quality before digital so I do see your point. However, a huge number of people have always been willing to sacrifice some quality for a free copy of something. Torrents and the like are very similar in that (as I mentioned above) you're so likely to cop anything from television watermarks to Dutch subtitles that the option to purchase can always be the more enticing one.

On top of that, it's easy for us to assume that everyone knows how to install torrent software, find a torrent site, set up port forwarding on their router etc etc. For people who don't know how to do any of that, recording a DVD to VHS is infinitely more accessible.

I think we agree that there will always be ~pirates~, just as there will always be tech newbs who can't use the darknet, as well as people who always want to do the right and legal thing. The trick imo is to attract as many people as possible to the third group, in addition to chasing those in the first group with a big stick.

Here's a slightly-less-near-future scenario. You're on the sofa and you want to watch Bridesmaids 3.

1. You get up and/or grab your device (you only need one), and you face a choice between pushing button A and getting what you want for free and pushing button B and getting exactly the same thing for a few cubits. No appreciable difference in simplicity or time involved.

2. Without getting off your arse, you press a button on the remote and watch Bridesmaids 3 for free. Of course.

― Little GTFO (contenderizer), Thursday, 19 January 2012 12:21 (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

That is not a reasonable scenario imo, given that button A does not and has never existed.

like what would you consider 'spread of information w/ zero transaction costs' pre-20th century?

yeah, i agree and said something earlier. what we're seeing with file sharing can't be easily compared to other things because it's so radically different in kind. still think it's instructive to think about how few examples there are in the world of things we pay for that we could just as easily get for free.

well when you phrase it like that, tons of stuff. I paid someone to make me a sandwich tonight (note: not subway) etc. etc. I think schlaf's right in principle, that people will pay for convenience, but the question is whether that convenience margin will always exist.

Think the margin is only getting wider. I have bought albums off iTunes on my phone when I already own them on CD and am too damn lazy to get out of bed and rip them and sync.

And the iPhone it's basically impossible to download MP3s outside the store, so any TV on the same model is never going to have a Button A

Also people still buy books when there are libraries. It only takes a small margin of hassle.

I have bought albums off iTunes on my phone when I already own them on CD and am too damn lazy to get out of bed and rip them and sync

i have done this (although not when i was in bed)

yeah but will people still buy books when they can torrent them in 3 seconds / 'online borrow from the library' / etc. xp

That is not a reasonable scenario imo, given that button A does not and has never existed.

but it will, imo. within the next decade, absent some massive intervention on behalf of copyright holders, i suspect that it will be much, much easier to find and download almost any kind of "content" imaginable. i mean, think about where we were a decade ago relative to where we are now. there's no reason to think those trends won't continue.

what's the equivalent case on which your assumption is based? is there anything that people have long paid a lot for that they've long been easily able to get for free in exactly the same form (i.e., without sacrificing perceptible quality)?

bottled water

Not that it's really important but, I closed my album share site down. After reading this thread and keeping in mind all of the great reissue labels doing great work, I really can't provide links with whole rips of records with a good conscience, even if they aren't in print. I'm going to redo my site and only post a few songs, with links of how to find the records if they are in print. I created it thinking people would go out and look for records and buy more if they knew there is more music to be found and discover. I don't really know anymore. I think I just ended up giving away a lot of free music.