[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I think online gaming has gotten a smidge different in the last 8 years since that game came out. Not to mention new map packs for one of my games take up over 1.5GB of space.

There ya go. Sloppy programming - we've grown into the bandwidth because it's there.

Originally Posted by sek929 

..and we have things called 'revisions' and 'bidding' which requires sharing new information from the architect with all your sub-contractors ASAP, not 'over the course of the night.'

Damn, how the hell did any houses ever get built prior to 1995?

Originally Posted by sek929 

Haha, oh man you are about to get smacked-the-f**k-down. My dad, who cannot live without the high-speed internet

How did he manage to survive the first 50-odd years of his life if he can't live without high speed internet?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

It's fun to watch someone lose all sense of objectivity.

Heh. Yes it is. Someone mentions you guys having to pay for your crap and all of a sudden all your objectivity goes out of the window. Fun to watch.

Can I be more clear than this: I don't care. I'm just entertaining myself between takes by playing devil's advocate. I'm financially sound whatever happens, and I don't care about whether the music biz goes tits up or not.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

There ya go. Sloppy programming - we've grown into the bandwidth because it's there.

1. I don't see why that's necessarily a bad thing. We might as well say you're lazy because you don't live in a cave and hunt buffalo with a wooden spear. Taking advantage of modern conveniences is not evil.
2. It's true to some degree that programmers have gotten sloppy, but even an efficiency genius would not be able to get a modern game down to a size that would be reasonable for dialup speeds — they're just too complicated. Information can only be compressed so far.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

There ya go. Sloppy programming - we've grown into the bandwidth because it's there.

We've grown into the new shoes we are able to afford more frequently. Sloppy shoe development, we should use our shoes longer and buy new shoes less often. We've grown into the world longer and healthier thanks to modern medicine. Sloppy human development, we should put a cap of 65 years on people. We can get to Cali in 6 hours versus a year by wagon. Sloppy transit, everyone should have to crowd on a 1960 GMC pickup and drive across the country.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Damn, how the hell did any houses ever get built prior to 1995?

Are you retarded? How did we do business with other countries before 1900? How did we treat cancer prior to 1980? How did we treat blacks prior to 1960?

Advancements.....BAAAAAAD!

Edit: In fact, now that my dad doesn't have to personally pay for extra printed copies of home plans our costs for bidding have gone way down.....wait for it......BAAAAAAAAAAAD!

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How did he manage to survive the first 50-odd years of his life if he can't live without high speed internet?

Terribly weak. He works on antique tractors for a hobby, he has 6. Try finding a users manual for a 1918 Centaur Tractor without the internet. Try buying a rebuilt brass swing-arm for a Hot-Air engine made in 1889. Oh yeah, 128k should be fine for that, so let's force everyone to use it because the poor poor musicians are the only ones hurting in this economy.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Heh. Yes it is. Someone mentions you guys having to pay for your crap and all of a sudden all your objectivity goes out of the window. Fun to watch.

I pay for all my stuff

Sure I've pirated to my hearts content in the past, but I know it's illegal, I'm not defending that. I'm just confused, very confused, nay completely f**kin astounded at your ideas.

Also, very slick move now saying that you were only trying to play devil's advocate.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Heh. Yes it is. Someone mentions you guys having to pay for your crap and all of a sudden all your objectivity goes out of the window. Fun to watch.

OH I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Can I be more clear than this: I don't care. I'm just entertaining myself between takes by playing devil's advocate.

So far Devil's Advocate is demonstrating that the music industries' last, best hope is taking the internet back into the stone age.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Terribly weak. He works on antique tractors for a hobby, he has 6. Try finding a users manual for a 1918 Centaur Tractor without the internet. Try buying a rebuilt brass swing-arm for a Hot-Air engine made in 1889.

Ummm. You said he couldn't live without high speed Internet.
What we're talking here isn't the difference between your old man being alive and dead, and isn't even about his ability to find a users' manual for a tractor (unless they only come in streaming 1080p). It's about between having to brew a cuppa or not while he wades through that half-gigabyte Flash intro (which wouldn't exist if everyone had capped connections anyways).

Originally Posted by sek929 

Oh yeah, 128k should be fine for that, so let's force everyone to use it because the poor poor musicians are the only ones hurting in this economy.

I ain't hurting. I'm just having a conversation. Why so panty wadded? Shall I send for the drama llama?

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ummm. You said he couldn't live without high speed Internet.
What we're talking here isn't the difference between your old man being alive and dead.

Intentionally overanalyzing an accepted turn-of-phrase should be punishable by death.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I ain't hurting. I'm just having a conversation. Why so panty wadded? Shall I send for the drama llama?

Either you are being intentionally ridiculous, or you actually believe limiting progress is a good thing. Either way it's annoying as hell.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I pay for all my stuff

Sure I've pirated to my hearts content in the past, but I know it's illegal, I'm not defending that. I'm just confused, very confused, nay completely f**kin astounded at your ideas.

OK, slowly this time:

We don't need high speed Internet. Some of us only think that we need high speed internet because since it's been available, we've grown into it. I can assure you that if speeds had never gone higher than 128k, every site would be optimised for 128k connections (no fat Flash intros, etc..) and your old man would still be able to go looking for tractor manuals.

We've grown too fast, too soon. Society and business infrastructure ain't ready for that kind of rapid change, and we're already reaping the whirlwind. That's all I'm saying with that tangent.

Originally Posted by sek929 

Also, very slick move now saying that you were only trying to play devil's advocate.

No, really, I don't give a toss. Like I said, my genre tends to have hardcore fans who stump up the bucks. And even if it didn't, I'm only in it for the boobies anyways - I'm already set for life.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Either you are being intentionally ridiculous, or you actually believe limiting progress is a good thing. Either way it's annoying as hell.

What "progress" would a bandwidth cap be limiting? Surely "progress" is best achieved when constrained by specific parameters? How much progress have we achieved in codec compression techniques and how much would we have achieved had virtually unlimited bandwidth not become available?

[sek929]

BTW, I've had cable internet for over 10 years (I got it myself when I had enough with dial-up). Even then I'd average 30+ KBps, which is 240kbps, almost double what your '128k enough for anybody' spiel is.

So lets go back 10 years.

My iMac now has a 450mhz G4, the fastest at the time - Con
Simpsons is still good - Pro
Battery tech not good enough to power skillsaw and/or hammer drill - Con
Cumbersome CD booklets only way of having entire music library - Con
Mapquest still gives me awful driving directions - Con
I have to go to Blockbuster, pay my late fee, and rent a scratched copy of Big Momma's House - Con

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

We don't need high speed Internet.

..but when folks say we don't need SUVs...then your panties get twisted?

Nobody needs anything besides water, food, and shelter. That includes music, cars, watches, bedspreads, shoes, stereos, funny t-shirts, etc.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What "progress" would a bandwidth cap be limiting? Surely "progress" is best achieved when constrained by specific parameters? How much progress have we achieved in codec compression techniques and how much would we have achieved had virtually unlimited bandwidth not become available?

I can click on a movie hosted on remote servers, buffer it in seconds, and watch it without having to leave my chair. I'd say that's huge progress in the way of entertainment.

Of course we don't need it, but you can refer to my above post.

[besson3c]

Doofy: should people with money be allowed to pay for bandwidth that is not capped under your scenario?

[sek929]

Doofy's scenario is that everybody should be like him, at all times. If you want for anything he doesn't need then you are out of luck.

[besson3c]

Doofy does have a point sek, I just think that he hasn't fully articulated it into words or come up with a truly viable solution for it. It is true that the root of the piracy problem is a cultural issue, but I can't really put it into words either. It does involve this odd belief that all public data can be had for free without consequence, or something like that.

[sek929]

I have no argument against that, it most certainly is a mindset problem. I can also say that the last 3 albums I downloaded illegally (Mars Volta, Dethklok, and Tool) I ended up buying shortly thereafter. That's because I love those artists and I want them to continue making music so I support them. I buy the shirts, I go to the concerts. This kind of loyalty is completely absent in the world of pop music. If somebody pirates their favorite Rhianna track they ain't gonna buy the CD.

It's Doofy's 'modest proposal' to fix it that baffles me.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Doofy's scenario is that everybody should be like him, at all times. If you want for anything he doesn't need then you are out of luck.

Untrue — I'm pretty sure Doofy has high-speed Internet.

[starman]

Originally Posted by sek929 

..but when folks say we don't need SUVs...then your panties get twisted?

Nobody needs anything besides water, food, and shelter. That includes music, cars, watches, bedspreads, shoes, stereos, funny t-shirts, etc.

Life would be pretty dull.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Doofy does have a point sek, I just think that he hasn't fully articulated it into words

This be true. But then, I do spend most of my waking hours talking in rhyming couplets - it's difficult to snap into "verbose" sometimes, y'know?

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Untrue — I'm pretty sure Doofy has high-speed Internet.

Indeed I do.

Sek's not quite understanding that this train of thought is just a "what if" scenario. Observe:

Muso: Piracy is bad, m'kay.
Freetard: Well, the industry should be thinking about new ways to operate in the digital age!
Muso: So what if ...?
Freetard: You can't do that! Society would suck!

And this is why the industry doesn't come up with alternatives - because there are no alternatives which would simultaneously (1) be economically sustainable and (2) keep the freetards happy. They want it free and they want it now! No business model available now or in the future can compete with "free and now". I'm sure some of the guys in this thread are convinced that the music biz hasn't been deeply contemplating this issue for the last five-odd years. But it's easier to scream "RIAA rip off!" every time.

[sek929]

You logic is flawed, why would anyone cater a business around people who steal their product? It's not the freetards that need to be kept happy it's the actual consumer.

Here is how it stands: The consumer does not want or need a $20 plastic disc anymore. The consumer does not want to have files they purchased eventually run out of 'authorizations' because of DRM treating them like criminals. The music consumer of today wants unfettered access to unlocked music for a reasonable price. That's the problem with the RIAA, they are so worried about their royalties they forgot they are in the business of selling music, not litigation. If they are failing at that business they have themselves to blame. This is like blaming GMs problems on people who steal cars. The majority of people still buy music (more and more on vinyl) no matter what the RIAA leads you to believe.

It's futile to even think of the pirates because that WILL NEVER STOP. Just like people will never stop knocking over 7-11s for cash.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by sek929 

The music consumer of today wants unfettered access to unlocked music for a reasonable price.

You can get that, at either Amazon, or, lately, iTunes.

[sek929]

Completely DRM-free?

edit: Apparently yes.

[besson3c]

The problem is, the freetards are often just teenagers who simply haven't thought much about any of this. Free music is just sort of available to them like running water. What has led them to be comfortable with what they do?

[sek929]

Anyone over 30 doesn't even think about pirating music. Teenagers love to break all sorts of laws. Teenagers also love to listen to sh!t music.

I think it's a great thing, the teenys will pirate their bands out of business leaving only real bands with fans who love donating money. This will clean out the current glut of terrible music and return the universe to a natural balance.

Meanwhile, people like me will continue to buy one or two albums a year, go to concerts,and generally support the musicians that enrich my life.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Meanwhile, people like me will continue to buy one or two albums a year

Damn, Sekky, the way you were banging on I thought you were an actual consumer or something.

[sek929]

I'm like you, I couldn't care any less either way.

I'm not rooting for TPB out of some misguided attempt to stick it to the man, and I'm not whining about the poor musicians who get screwed by their label.

A billion-dollar business should be able to weather pimply teenagers without having to resort to cave-man internet for everyone.

My what-if is let the chips fall as they may, if it's pirates that will bring about the end of all music, so be it. Eventually no music will be made and there will be nothing to pirate. Then the cycle can start up again. I'm pretty sure most of the bands I listen to will find a way to get the music to their fans (probably for more profit) in the terrible absence of the RIAA.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I'm like you, I couldn't care any less either way.

Originally Posted by sek929 

A billion-dollar business should be able to weather pimply teenagers without having to resort to cave-man internet for everyone.

I think we're going to see some big changes in how things are done once a bit more bandwidth is generally available and films become as quick to download as mp3s - I can't see Hollywood bending over like the RIAA (etc.) has been doing. Should be interesting.

[sek929]

Netflix already has the delivery down-pat. It's easier for me to queue a movie then torrent it, I can't remember the last time I actually bought a movie on disc...

Also, don't forget that video gaming is poised to become the world leader in entertainment. I think that has a lot to do with declining music and movie sales.

[Chuckit]

I'd love for the MPAA to offer high-quality, DRM-free downloads like the recording industry has finally started doing. I'd actually buy those. Not interested in Silverlight crap, though.

[sek929]

If they offered Venture Season 3 that way I'd buy it right now.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Also, don't forget that video gaming is poised to become the world leader in entertainment. I think that has a lot to do with declining music and movie sales.

Yep. Like I said, it's a convergence.

--

I'm still waiting for seasons 5-12 of NYPD Blue on any format.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Yeah. Poor Radiohead. They sure lead a hard life.

They are also among the top 2% who actually make money from music. And they worked their asses getting there.

Do you really think all musicians gets it handed to them on a silver plate?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Hulu:
We used to have things called "TVs", "video recorders" and "PVRs". We survived.

iTunes:
We survived before iTunes.

Amazon:
Used to sell things called "CDs". Quite a popular way of distributing music, IIRC.

We also survived before modern medicine. Just not as long.

I love how "progress" is such a dirty word amongst conservatives.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I love how "progress" is such a dirty word amongst conservatives.

I hate how liberals twist and turn anything to say sarcastic comments about conservatives.

[shifuimam]

Indeed. Not all conservatives are blindly against progress. The ones who are tend to be the types who just believe whatever political commentators tell them to believe.

I like how this discussion has veered off on a tangent about bandwidth caps, and debating what we need and don't need.

We survived without the Internet. However, if it weren't for the Internet, I wouldn't currently be employed. We survived without electricity, running water, the wheel, drywall, vehicles, and steel. That doesn't inherently mean that we should go back to the stone ages and live like people did thousands of years ago (or more).

Talking about capping connections at 128k sounds like what a liberal would do - make a blanket change without looking at the long-term or global impact of that change. Slowing down consumer Internet would have a massive impact on e-commerce across the board. Something tells me it would bring complaints from more than just kids on TPB.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I hate how liberals twist and turn anything to say sarcastic comments about conservatives.

Funny. Seeing as I'm not a "liberal".

But by the very definition of the word conservative, you would be against progress. And by Doofy's own words (not twisted nor turned), he is.

Of course, progress made up until about the time the conservative was born is usually exempt however.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Talking about capping connections at 128k sounds like what a liberal would do - make a blanket change without looking at the long-term or global impact of that change. Slowing down consumer Internet would have a massive impact on e-commerce across the board.

You are such a source of amusement I hope you never stop posting here!

[starman]

Was the judge biased, based on connections to the Swedish copyright association?

http://mashable.com/2009/04/23/pirate-bay-judge-biased/

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Funny. Seeing as I'm not a "liberal".

But by the very definition of the word conservative, you would be against progress. And by Doofy's own words (not twisted nor turned), he is.

Of course, I'm not against all progress. Just the progress which sucks. Compare this to a lib who tends to accept any and all progress as "good" regardless of how much it sucks.

I'm not a conservative either, so you're full of fail.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Slowing down consumer Internet would have a massive impact on e-commerce across the board.

What, you mean the massive impact of the sales servers having to make do with HTML, CSS and optimised images rather than throwing a 40 Gb Flash file at everyone who visits their front page?

Last time I looked, typing your CC details into a web form wasn't exactly a bandwidth-intensive activity.

[shifuimam]

Yeah, that must be it. *headdesk*

I lose brain cells every time I interact with you.

[besson3c]

Doofy: I think what shif meant was the ability for businesses to do stuff such as have disaster recovery plans that span across multiple machine rooms, offsite backup, provision of large or largeish media files such as video/audio, etc.

There is *always* a need for more bandwidth, and an insatiable appetite for it in Enterprise IT. The question with your scenario is who should get it, and should it be available for those that are willing to pay extra?

Using technology to solve a problem that begins and ends with customer and cultural attitudes rarely, if ever works. At best it is a deterrent. However, I would think that if the prospect of multi-million dollar lawsuits isn't enough of a deterrent, making downloading stuff a little more inconvenient is probably not going to do much better.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Doofy: I think what shif meant was the ability for businesses to do stuff such as have disaster recovery plans that span across multiple machine rooms, offsite backup, provision of large or largeish media files such as video/audio, etc.

And that requires consumer bandwidth how?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Yeah, that must be it. *headdesk*

So tell me how, exactly, e-commerce would be "massively impacted" if consumer bandwidth is limited.

C'mon. Waiting.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I lose brain cells every time I interact with you.

Dang. I'd best call Mensa and let 'em know you won't be turfing up to their meetings any more.

[besson3c]

It doesn't require consumer bandwidth, unless you are counting on delivering HD video or something, but you still haven't answered my questions. Can consumers buy additional bandwidth if they choose?

You can't fight supply and demand. As long as there is some demand for bandwidth (whether it is in the business or consumer sector), there will be competition and ultimately cheaper prices. It will eventually become cheaper for network infrastructure companies to consolidate on technologies that are in the greatest demand, just as you can't get the latest RAM technology from Crucial or Corsair in 8 MB.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You can't fight supply and demand. As long as there is some demand for bandwidth (whether it is in the business or consumer sector), there will be competition and ultimately cheaper prices.

What's that got to do with anything?

[starman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So tell me how, exactly, e-commerce would be "massively impacted" if consumer bandwidth is limited.

C'mon. Waiting.



Dang. I'd best call Mensa and let 'em know you won't be turfing up to their meetings any more.

Oh, come on, Doof. With HD and large downloads being paid for, are you really throwing this argument around?

Sh!t, let's just go back to 14.4 baud, eh? Cuz like you said, you don't need bandwidth for a CC entry, right?

RIGHT?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What's that got to do with anything?

Because you can't prevent providing faster bandwidth to consumers as long as the supply and demand exists.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So tell me how, exactly, e-commerce would be "massively impacted" if consumer bandwidth is limited.

HD Video
The iTunes Music Store in the US has HD downloads. Even SD downloads (about 500 MB a pop) would be unbearable (the download speed has to be greater than the bitrate, otherwise you have to wait for the download to finish).

Software Downloads
MacTeX weighs in at over a GB. Software updates are regularly greater than 100 MB.

Games
Although I don't play WoW (because I think the first two letters stand for Waste of), but there are quite a few online games that depend on a high-speed internet connection. Just the downloads are ridiculously large.

Online Backup/File storage
Some people actually do that. I often put zip archives of photos I've taken for friends to download. Also 40~100 MB a piece.

IP TV
In some countries (e. g. France), you don't have cable anymore, but TV programs are streamed via your internet connection.

Of course, this would mean lost revenue for companies as well.