41–50 of 173 posts
(Of course, something like this would probably have to be a constitutional amendment, and I doubt that would ever happen.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple has draconian restrictions on stuff like iOS for the user's sake (and for Apple's partially), and with the huge amount of users they obviously got that right. I'm not entirely sure what Apple's stance on SOPA is (I heard they supported it, but then I heard they didn't), but I don't think it would matter to them. They don't need to sue for piracy because they have the iTunes Store, which only distributes content…
I could say that the MPAA's restrictions are also for the viewer's sake, and with the huge amount of viewers they obviously got that right. I don't believe it, but I don't see where it's wrong but the equivalent for Apple is right. Personally, I think Apple's policies are more destructive. They're doing a pretty decent job of convincing an entire generation that locked-down, manufacturer-controlled computing is good.…
You're also assuming that everyone who uses a computer knows how to modify it and not break it. Understand that a lot of Apple users want a device that just works. They don't want to have to mess around with the operating system or type a lot of intimidating commands into a terminal just to change something. They want to go on Facebook, play some games, listen to music, or type term papers. DRM does nothing but prevent things from "just working." It locks down where you can watch DVDs, how you can watch them, how you can use things, and can even lock you out of something if there's a problem on the developer's end (example: Assassin's Creed 2 included a DRM that needed an internet connection whenever you played the game, so if Ubisoft's servers went down or you don't have access to Internet, you can't play the game). To say that DRM is for the user's benefit and totally not for the developer's is insane.
Comparing the MPAA's restrictions with Apple is a bit unfair, and their success is only due to almost a complete monopoly in that area. The MPAA executives look at their audience with dollar signs in their eyes. Apple looks at them with those same dollar signs, but also with care and pride for the products they push out. They want to get a good product out. They adopted new business models like iTunes, iCloud, and even Siri. The MPAA is the antithesis of innovation and doesn't care about the products it pushes out, it just wants money.
Sorry for the long rant, but I needed to do it.
It's a nice thought, but you have to get your cousin, third cousin, your parents, your grandparents and etc to boycott Hollywood too. How do you accomplish this when media is engrained in our daily lives & culture?
I don't quite understand. Are people suggesting that congress considers legislation primarily based on campaign contributions and that this is the same for both main parties? So they will only go against legislation proposed by lobbyists if they feel the votes they would lose would outweigh the benefit of those contributions to their next campaign? If that is the case then I'm sorry to say but your entire government…
It is the case. The U.S. congress basically runs on payola. You can buy any bill you want.
Assuming even a half competent set of politicians they would be able to do an objectively better job since they would consider things on merits rather than contributions.
Why do you need so much money to run a campaign anyway? Surely you could get the word out online and take donations from the public.
Of course you would really need 2 parties so people could express their left or right wing beliefs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can get started without waiting for everyone else, and when they'll ask you why you act that way you'll tell them. We can't kill that industry in one week but you and I can start today and more people will join later. That's what's happened in the last years.
There's a backlash here though. I've actually stopped telling people I don't watch TV because there is now a "holier than thou" aura around it. I think most people hate how much they like TV, but if you mention how you just stopped TV all together, they think you are just rubbing it in, like you're better than them. Like the guy who always talks about he was just "hitting the gym". No one like that guy either. Any su…
A better strategy would be to point out the progress (even if false) that someone is making in living a better life (less TV for example). If you can successfully plant that identity seed in their head, they will feel empowered to continue to cut back. The ego is a funny construct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can get started without waiting for everyone else, and when they'll ask you why you act that way you'll tell them. We can't kill that industry in one week but you and I can start today and more people will join later. That's what's happened in the last years.
There's a backlash here though. I've actually stopped telling people I don't watch TV because there is now a "holier than thou" aura around it. I think most people hate how much they like TV, but if you mention how you just stopped TV all together, they think you are just rubbing it in, like you're better than them. Like the guy who always talks about he was just "hitting the gym". No one like that guy either. Any su…
it would be more productive to significantly reduce or eliminate our support of the MPAA member companies starting today The problem is that any reduction in income to the studios would be spun as "fallout from pirates stealing our IP." Attacking campaign finance is the way to go. edit: spelling
Attacking campaign finance is not the way to go, because (a) it can't work, and (b) it's shooting ourselves in the foot by constraining our own right to speak. Consider, all of you that moan about Citizens United : if it's wrong for a corporation to support a political position, then why are your cheering about what Wikipedia, reddit, Google, etc., have done to support the opposition to SOPA/PIPA? And there's no way…
You're absolutely correct that corporations/unions/organizations can and should be able to support positions, but that doesn't have to be a direct benefit to a candidate in that way that campaign contributions are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explain the reasoning why one company has the right to limit your freedoms while another doesn't? If you look at the specific examples Marco spelled out (" region locks and unskippable screens and encryption and criminalization of fair use.") those are restrictions that benefit only the studios and inconvenience the customer. The iOS restrictions Apple propagates benefit Apple, but for many customers (not HN types) t…
Your comparison is invalid. Apple's bootloader locks are a better comparison (Not referring to SIM lock which is provider mandated). Or the fact that you can't change batteries on your devices? Seems to me the purpose behind that is for you to change your device when the battery can't hold a good enough charge instead of just changing the batteries! How does that benefit the consumer? HTC removes bootloader locks: ht…
Personally, I think we need to make it so that only registered voters can give money to candidates, with a maximum amount set per contributor. That would automatically disallow all direct contributions from corporations and prevent the rich from having more influence than the poor. (Of course, something like this would probably have to be a constitutional amendment, and I doubt that would ever happen.)
But anyways, yeah, the hard part would be actually putting this into place. I mean, nobody in power would want this to happen. It would be bad for the lobbyists and bad for the congressmen. No incentive there, and much incentive to fight against it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could say that the MPAA's restrictions are also for the viewer's sake, and with the huge amount of viewers they obviously got that right. I don't believe it, but I don't see where it's wrong but the equivalent for Apple is right. Personally, I think Apple's policies are more destructive. They're doing a pretty decent job of convincing an entire generation that locked-down, manufacturer-controlled computing is good.…
I never said that Apple was right. There are a lot of things I disagree with in regard to Apple (I hated the first iPhone, I really did). I said that you're comparing two completely different models and range of products. You're also assuming that everyone who uses a computer knows how to modify it and not break it. Understand that a lot of Apple users want a device that just works . They don't want to have to mess a…