Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

If the future's worth having, it won't be free

This is the forum to discuss internet and other tech topics which aren't specifically hardware or software related issues.
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

If the future's worth having, it won't be free

Postby multivariable » Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:33 pm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article6870224.ece

Call me a reactionary, call me a Murdoch lackey, but the fact is that, after a vague flirtation with the concept that “information wants to be free” and years of internet surfing, I feel a sense of revolt.

It’s been fun: like a jammed fruit machine spewing free tokens or a whisky-galore shipwreck. But it’s got to stop. Content — whether music, films, pictures, news or prose — can’t be free and flourish. The music and movie industries are fighting: journalism, after the ego trip of gaining millions of online readers, is following. It has to. There is no alternative.

The labourer is worthy of his hire, time is money, pay peanuts and you get monkeys. Pay nothing and you get dumb (or worse, venal) monkeys. Nothing costs nothing. And to do a straightforward deal is better than to endure an oblique and more sinister levy: the selling of your attention to hidden persuaders.

It is ironic how many of the rising generation of students constantly tell pollsters that they plan to work in the media or creative arts, yet that same generation tends to believe that content — hard work created by other people — is free. Pirated music, films, news, photographs, cartoons and carefully researched or created prose are theirs at the click of a mouse. For the owners to ask for payment is a diabolical liberty. The young are conditioned to think this way because that is how the internet feels: a web invented by academics rather than business people, its default setting is “free”.
User avatar
multivariable
 
Posts: 27959
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:28 am

Re: If the future’s worth having, it won’t be free

Postby jokster » Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:04 am

ok then Libby Purves you are nothing more than a reactionary and a Murdoch lackey.
i dont want to shock or disturb you in any way but you dont seem to have put in all the hard work and research that you appear to be claiming to have done as believe it or not the internet was built and designed by academics not capitalist business men, and yes information should be free. or do you believe that information is only for the privileged few and the uneducated masses can rot in ignorance and poverty - oh for the glory days of the victorian era and the work houses, what d'ya think Libby, d'ya miss 'em?
art is not innately free

well i beg to differ my greedy little reporter. it is us, well multinational corporations for the most part, who put a price on art, no-one else. or did i miss a meeting when they discovered the price tags hanging off cave paintings? i myself paint and most of my art is given away for free or i let the buyer pay what they think its worth. as for music well more than the fair share seem to be nothing more than corporate whores or puppets, so the name artist most definitely does not apply to these people. and more than a few have a web presence and are moving towards no middle men, oh but think of the poor executives and their mansions and servants - oh my god its the end of the world! what will we do!
my problem is not with compensation for the artist, my problem is with egocentric greedy greedy swine make vast sums out of something they generally had nothing to do with the creation of. there is a big difference between earing a living and ripping people off in the name of the mighty dollar. i'm all for people making a few sheckles , but how much does tom cruise charge for what he calls acting? try justify that fee for someone who just pretends to be someone else and reads someone elses words. now think about a doctor, a nurse, a teacher jesus anyone who actually make a difference to real people. if we are taking compensation here - whistling a tune or saving a life, i know who gets the money in my book.
As a reader, I do not wish to be delivered up, gagged and bound, to a commercial or political paymaster who has the writer in his sway.

did you think about this line at any stage? erm... Murdoch!!!
its time to change you dinosaur. at least the evening standard is trying and not just kicking and screaming like a spoilt brat.
and after all your rehashed rhetoric here i am reading you crappy little article on the web for free!
prick

sorry for the rant peeps but that dickhead really got my goat.
Capitalism Is Cannibalism
Resistance is fertile
User avatar
jokster
 
Posts: 920
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Norn Iron

Re: If the future’s worth having, it won’t be free

Postby Fartingbob » Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:54 am

jokster wrote:but how much does tom cruise charge for what he calls acting? try justify that fee for someone who just pretends to be someone else and reads someone elses words. now think about a doctor, a nurse, a teacher jesus anyone who actually make a difference to real people. if we are taking compensation here - whistling a tune or saving a life, i know who gets the money in my book.

I agreed with everything in your post except this bit. Ive heard that argument before "why does x celebrity get paid so much while doctors and teachers get so little in comparison" and it just irritates me.
Tom Cruise gets paid huge sums of money not because he has done something to benefit mankind or save lives but because the movie producer is betting on the fact that Tom Cruise is in his film will boost profits by more than they are paying him because people (not sure why) want to see Tom Cruise films. In a capitalist country where people are free to spend there money on hiring batshit-crazy scientologists to act in front of their camera naturally some people are going to get paid more than others even if they do less important things.
User avatar
Fartingbob
P2P Trafficker
 
Posts: 13248
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:18 pm
Location: Serenity

Re: If the future’s worth having, it won’t be free

Postby jokster » Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:42 am

fair point but it still doesnt make it right. but i really cant see why anyone (poor tom was just the first name that came to mind - what does that say!?) gets payed a fortune just because they are good at pretending. that and the fact that they wont get out out of bed for less than x million. dont even get me started on footballers getting paid millions for kicking a ball around - good god.
the world is just getting madder and greedier and it my misfortune to live in it. somewhere, a long time ago the human race made a wrong turn and it has been down hill ever since.
Capitalism Is Cannibalism
Resistance is fertile
User avatar
jokster
 
Posts: 920
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Norn Iron

Re: If the future’s worth having, it won’t be free

Postby Fartingbob » Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:45 am

jokster wrote:fair point but it still doesnt make it right. but i really cant see why anyone (poor tom was just the first name that came to mind - what does that say!?) gets payed a fortune just because they are good at pretending. that and the fact that they wont get out out of bed for less than x million. dont even get me started on footballers getting paid millions for kicking a ball around - good god.
the world is just getting madder and greedier and it my misfortune to live in it. somewhere, a long time ago the human race made a wrong turn and it has been down hill ever since.

I firmly believe if we all "shared the wealth" based on who's job was deemed best for humanity we would currently still be living in the dark ages.
User avatar
Fartingbob
P2P Trafficker
 
Posts: 13248
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:18 pm
Location: Serenity

Re: If the future’s worth having, it won’t be free

Postby jokster » Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:20 am

nah, i'm more just share the wealth. no-one deserves to be a fat cat, ever. people starve and people struggle while others get rich off their backs - t'aint right i tells ya. i genuinely couldnt be a multi millionaire and live with my conscience, you dont even need to travel far to see poverty and despair. it would take a lot of horlicks to make me sleep easy. until people work for the good of humanity and not themselves we will keep driving the human race into that brick wall of greed and we will trample others in the race to crash.
Capitalism Is Cannibalism
Resistance is fertile
User avatar
jokster
 
Posts: 920
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Norn Iron

Re: If the future's worth having, it won't be free

Postby luxor500 » Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:10 pm

I firmly believe if we all "shared the wealth" based on who's job was deemed best for humanity we would currently still be living in the dark ages


I agree that footballers and actors get paid great gobs of money not because of the value of the value of their skills to humanity - but simply because lots of regular folks are willing to throw money at them in order to see them perform.

But try this on for size ---If we DID pay people based the value of their skills to humanity the top wage earners in the world would be Scientist, Engineers, Doctors, Teachers, Farmers, Police and Firemen (they are willing to risk their lives to save the rest of us) and Artisans (who make the world a more beautiful place). Not necessarily in that order. Near the bottom of the list would be athlete, bankers, politicians and lawyers. And perhaps at the very bottom of the list would be record executives.
If this were the way people were compensated I doubt very much the we would be in the Dark Ages. In fact, we would probably be a far richer and more advanced world than we are now.

:thumbup:
"If man can not solve this problem - I can..." Colossus
User avatar
luxor500
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 8:22 pm

Re: If the future's worth having, it won't be free

Postby Fartingbob » Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:52 pm

luxor500 wrote:Near the bottom of the list would be athlete, bankers, politicians and lawyers. And perhaps at the very bottom of the list would be record executives.

Without politicians we would have anarchy, so i would think that that job is worth alot in this silly little utopia we are building. Civilization doesnt function without bureaucracy.
User avatar
Fartingbob
P2P Trafficker
 
Posts: 13248
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:18 pm
Location: Serenity

Re: If the future's worth having, it won't be free

Postby Psisquared » Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:10 pm

multivariable wrote:a web invented by academics rather than business people


I thought the internet was an academic invention.
The quick brown fox jumps over a lazy dog.
User avatar
Psisquared
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:36 am
Location: Impossible to ascertain due to uncertainty principle

Re: If the future's worth having, it won't be free

Postby jokster » Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:46 am

Without politicians we would have anarchy

what so wrong with anarchy?
i would advise that you read up on anarchism - its not about the bullshit you read in the press or the the goverment fed nonsense about dangerous criminals dressed in black wanting nothing more than violence and destruction. Noam Chomsky would be a very good staring point.
politicians are the scum of the earth and some of the worst criminals on the planet. who starts the wars? who sends off the working classes for the cull? who robs the system blind? who makes unfair, unjust laws? not me and you thats for sure.
i do agree that as a whole the human race is far to immature for anarchism, but again thats done to the wrong turn a long time ago, but there are many communes across the world that have been running for many years without a problem - so its not beyond the scope of humans to live together without beating seven bells out of each other and with no need for some silver spoon fed wanker telling them what they can and cant do.
Capitalism Is Cannibalism
Resistance is fertile
User avatar
jokster
 
Posts: 920
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Norn Iron

Re: If the future's worth having, it won't be free

Postby pepe0007 » Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:27 pm


Open Letter to TimesOnline: If your shit is for pay, I shall get my shit elsewhere. Full stop.
pepe0007
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 4:58 pm
Location: Madrid

Re: If the future’s worth having, it won’t be free

Postby jimmy90 » Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:25 am

jokster wrote:Murdoch lackey


ROFLMAO. You beat me to it. :toast:
User avatar
jimmy90
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 7:48 am
Location: Neo-Rave Armageddon

Re: If the future's worth having, it won't be free

Postby multivariable » Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:30 am

by about three and a half months...
User avatar
multivariable
 
Posts: 27959
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:28 am

Re: If the future's worth having, it won't be free

Postby craftycorner » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:59 am

Call me a reactionary, call me a Murdoch lackey, but the fact is that, after a vague flirtation with the concept that “information wants to be free” and years of internet surfing, I feel a sense of revolt.

It’s been fun: like a jammed fruit machine spewing free tokens or a whisky-galore shipwreck. But it’s got to stop. Content — whether music, films, pictures, news or prose — can’t be free and flourish. The music and movie industries are fighting: journalism, after the ego trip of gaining millions of online readers, is following. It has to. There is no alternative.


You may feel a sense of revolt at information getting loose, but information just isn't listening to either you or Murdoch. And as far as the comparison to the broken token machine, free information tends to create more information. You really need to take a glance at Digg and Twitter. They are more than gossip central. Twitter was the Iran hot spot for when the social explosion happened when the near revolution happened. Twitter's growth is so out of control it can barely keep up.

The distribution costs of content fall when you add filesharing with free digital information and pure profit when there are advertisements included. Physical free information/media is low cost to produce, high profit when there's advertisements unobtrusively included. The advertisers actually can pay to get into some content.
My God, its full of files!

Crafty
User avatar
craftycorner
 
Posts: 1318
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:18 am


Return to Tech/Other/Internet Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com