291–300 of 317 posts
When I delete an article from my blog, it's because I don't want anyone to be able to read it anymore. Be it shame, inaccuracy, change of mood, etc... I think there is something fundamentally wrong with wanting to have EVERYTHING backed up at all time against the creators' will.
Suck it up. Once you go out of your way to make something public...it will remain public
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the first things I do with any article that I've enjoyed is download an HTML copy and create a PDF. Too many times I've bookmarked something only to come back a year later and it's gone.
I started using Firefox for Android partly because of its excellent Save page as PDF feature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on your tastes. If you only really care about say 100 ish or fewer CD's worth of music then you can easily hit that and save money vs a streaming service. So for someone like me they are a complete waste of money. Remember, 70 years * 10$ / month ~= 8,400$ for music over a lifetime. By comparison you can easily buy say every piece of music by Bob Marley and your done no need to ever do so again. Sure, if you…
Even then, your figure of $8400 is very optimistic. Assuming 1% inflation per year people will pay $20 per month in 70 years.
When I delete an article from my blog, it's because I don't want anyone to be able to read it anymore. Be it shame, inaccuracy, change of mood, etc... I think there is something fundamentally wrong with wanting to have EVERYTHING backed up at all time against the creators' will.
> When I delete an article from my blog It's not yours anymore once it's public. It's like saying "when I do something crazy in public I want to be able to make everyone forget about it later on". That's not how things are supposed to work. > I don't want anyone to be able to read it anymore People can still have local copies so you have absolutely NO CONTROL.
Your lack of compassion on mental health issues and the way basic society has worked for thousands/millions of years are disturbing.
People make mistakes, society then punishes for a bit and forgets to forgive.
This is how it's always worked and a compassionate way to live.
The idea because people have the power not to forget they have a right to use that against you forever is soooo abusive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? Google and Amazon both sell DRM free music. (Apple might too, I've just been out of that ecosystem for so long that I don't really remember)
I feel like music is one of the few pieces of media that's very easy to buy DRM free. Movies, TV shows, books, and most other things are heavily encumbered after you "buy" them.
I don't feel bad about doing this because I'm still paying for the books and I'm not distributing the backups I make. I'm not clear on whether personal backups are a legal exception or not, but I don't really care.
Over the last year I've come to trust effectively nothing on the internet. I've had so many Spotify playlists I was following disappear, whole artists, websites, articles, etc. I'm slowly moving to offline-first versions of all the information I care about. Edit: This change too also lends to the 'slow web' (or just slow $whatever) movement, which I'm a fan of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I won't blame people for storing a private copy, but I will blame people for sharing such copy if it is against my will, especially if they're claiming it is their right and thus my integrity has to suffer.
> and thus my integrity has to suffer. What sort of integrity is it, that can be adjusted by erasing your past actions, to hide the mistakes you've made and only present the successes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because 99% of the time the streaming service for music is better than trying to build your own library. It also seems to have a lot less attribution than video stream right now so people don't have to pay attention to where they can stream a specific song, they can use just about any app and get what they are looking for.
One major drawback to me is the recurring cost. My feeling is that building an offline library that you truely own is much cheaper than using some streaming service with monthly recurring costs that inflate over time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never used Spotify, so a genuine question: would Spotify play the Dark Side of the Moon from start to finish ? EDIT: Thanks for the answers folks, and yes, playing it out of order, or with interruptions would ruin its sonic beauty.
If you have Spotify premium then yes. I've had premium for some time now so I don't know if it's changed but without premium shuffle is always toggled. So without premium you could listen to dark side of the moon, but it'd be out of order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Once you choose to make a copy and transmit it to someone else (perhaps as a response to a HTTP GET request), that copy becomes their property. Has anyone tried your argument in a copyright case? Say, I access a NYT article, and according to your reasoning it becomes mine the moment their site show it to me. If it's mine I can publish and monetize it.
> If it's mine I can publish and monetize it. Yes , you can[1][2] monetize (resell) your copy . You do not have the right to make new copies. This ability is granted explicitly[3] in 17 U.S. Code § 109 (a): >> [...] the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispos…
If I post an article on mysite.org on "free trade" and you think you can archive it and copy and re-distribute it for eternity, you better think it again. The implied license is to read the article from my site, for as long as it is posted there--in MY site. Now, if I become a US President and someone has a copy from 45 years ago, that's different.