Re: [tlug] Tux is now in Tokyo ! who wants to get it ?

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Curt Sampson writes:

 > Or the Warner treadmill. I've spent thousands of dollars over the
 > past five years or so building up a collection of over 300 movies.
 > However, they're all on DVD, and if I want to watch any of these in
 > high definition I'm being asked to pay for the same movie again, at an
 > even higher price, to get a copy on Blu-Ray.

So what?  *It's not the "same movie", it's high definition.* Think of
like getting a live album which has all the same songs on it as the
studio release (except that the live album usually has *lower* sound
quality, what with all the drunk chippies screaming!)  If you don't
want to pay to "upgrade", find different movies to watch, or watch it
again on DVD, or find a friend who has a copy to watch it with, or
marry wealth, or wait four years and get them 3 for 5000 yen on eBay.

Really, even if it *is* the same movie, there's nothing wrong or
stupid about paying twice for your movies.  I went through three
copies of Eat a Peach on vinyl, and happily paid for another on CD (a
higher price, too, taking account of the fact that it was used).  A
friend of mine went through *9* copies of Who's Next (he kept wearing
out "Won't Get Fooled Again", how ironic!) in college.  There were
plenty of folks around us recording $15 dollar albums on $1.50 tapes,
but so what?

No question, the system sucks -- far too little content is getting to
far too few users, and maybe technology is now cheap enough to replace
this system, lock Disney in a cell, put WMG in the stocks, and roll
Microsoft over Niagara Falls in a barrel.  But at the time the movies
you're talking about mostly could not have been produced without the
bloodsucking media giants, and the copyright law that protects their
profit.  I suspect you probably won't find that many great movies
produced by indies even with the new wonderful technology.  God knows
I have yet to enjoy any of the amateur covers I've watched on YouTube!

 > On 2009-09-08 14:25 +0900 (Tue), Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > 
 > > Besides not wanting to pay, they don't want to *think*,
 > > especially not if that would lead to the understanding that
 > > there's good reason why they should have to pay.
 > 
 > Yup. I thought about it, and paid, and look where it got me.

It got you to a place where you look around and go "the freeloaders
got away with it, I wish I was a freeloader, too."  Lad, read the Holy
Book (of your choice), think of it as history.  "Plus ca change, plus
ca meme chose" as Qoheleth said.  Then think, "do I *really* want to
go there, or am I just blowing off steam?"

 > > I'm just saying that the "free software" movement is mostly about
 > > free beer and hacker privilege.... it's very rarely about being
 > > able to repair the mess yourself.
 > 
 > That is certainly not the case in the corporate world, which
 > supplies a large amount (perhaps the majority) of developer-hours
 > put in to free software. There are plenty of companies out there
 > putting significant amounts of work into free software specifically
 > for risk managment purposes:

But that's not the free software movement, that's open source.  Ie,
the licenses may be the same, but the motivation is different.
They're not doing it because it's morally correct, they're doing it
because it's profitable.  They do not hesitate to put money down for
proprietary software if it's significantly better or the only
available product with the functionality or whatever.  Here's the
difference:

RMS:  Using proprietary software is selling your soul to the devil.
      It's a sin against the dignity of man, so use only free software.

ESR:  Using proprietary software is like whacking your head with a
      hammer.  Stop the self-abuse, use open source, and get rich.