Sharing mp3s: not stealing, giving to charity

The RIAA (the Recording Industry Association of America) would have us believe that sharing/downloading mp3s/movies is like stealing cars or televisions. We are told this almost constantly in the news, before movies in the cinema, etc. Most people find this difficult to believe at least for the obvious reason that, once a TV is stolen, it is no longer in the store. But once an mp3/movie is downloaded, it still exists with the 'supplier'.


However, what has occurred to me recently, is that P2P sharing of mp3s/movies is less like traditional theft and more like...giving to charity. One steals a TV or car in order to make money, which is to say, to resell it. Instead, most people who trade mp3s online do not do it for the money, but rather to sample what is there, to reacquire songs they once owned but lost, or other similarly non-capitalistic reasons--appreciation, for example.

Thus, P2P sharing is more similar to taking your old clothes to a charity, than it is to stealing a new TV.


As a post script, the RIAA and movie industries claim huge losses due to downloads. Indeed, this is the prime driving force behind the current 'awareness' campaign (and lawsuits). However, I beg to differ with their interpretation. In reality, if the internet (or P2P) didn't exist and the songs/movies couldn't be downloaded, most of them would never be acquired by these people. That is, the people doing much of the downloading (apart from those doing it as a business--and these people are not targeted by the RIAA) would not be buying the CDs/DVDs anyway. Most of these people just download as a collector might and probably never listen to most of the songs they download--and would definitely not be buying them. So, in effect, P2P has not lost the companies much money and has actually gained them a free advertising venue. Unfortunately, the typical, dollar-signs-in-their-eyes executives are unable to see reality through their imaginary financial losses. Anyway, anyone that's traveled some of the world can tell them that their real losses are coming from the mass downloaders that package and resell the CDs/DVDs more cheaply than the original, something that happens in the Mediterranean countries, the middle east and southeast Asia. I've seen stores in Middle East shopping centers that have the knock-off media proudly displayed in the front of the store and will mention to you that you can also buy the more expensive original, if you want, in the back.

Not the Jedi I should be

Sometimes I feel like Anakin in Revenge of the Sith: 'Something's wrong...I'm not the Jedi I should be.'

Western 'life'

More and more westerners understand, at least at a subconscious level, that money is not the answer. Unfortunately, we've moved so far down the path in pursuit of it that it now seems we've lost sight of what the answer is.

Don't believe me? Countries of the western world have the highest suicide rates. We live in the most luxurious conditions, with the best jobs and highest standards of living. Yet we commit suicide more frequently than any other culture. If money was the answer, shouldn't we enjoy life more, not less?

Athiest thought #5

The only thing religion actually teaches is how to blindly follow an ideal.

None of the 'rules to live by' espoused by religion (ten commandments, etc.) are specific to deities or especially to any one deity. They can be arrived at just as well through secular reasoning, thus, they are independent of religion. Therefore, when stripping away all that can be learned either secularly or through sacred means, we are left with only this one fact.

Rigged games shows #1: Goldenballs (UK)

Over the course of their existence, there have been several cases of rigged game shows. Usually this has taken on the form where popular contestants have been helped to win. However, the form of 'rigging' I'm speaking about here is the modern, money-conscious, control all variables form. And nowhere is this better exemplified than in the UK game show Goldenballs.

For those who haven't seen the show, it begins with four contestants who each have four golden coloured balls before them, two each in two rows. Everyone can see the 'front' two balls but only the contestants can see the rear two. The balls each have a money value inside them, however, to make things interesting, there are several 'killer' balls which come into play in the final round and thus form one basis for 'voting off' contestants. In round one, the four contestants talk and try to convince each other of what they have in the other balls and why they should go to the next round. After a time limit, they vote and one person is removed, showing all their balls (which are then removed from play). More money balls and killer balls are entered into play and the second round proceeds much like the first (except each contestant now has 5 balls). After the voting, two players remain. They then enter a short, cooperative round to build up as much money as they can by trying to select money balls and avoiding killers. The show ends with the inevitable back-stabbing round where each player elects to either 'split' or 'steal' the money. If both 'split' they each take half the pot. If one splits and one steals, the stealer takes all the money and if both steal, none get the money.

At first appearance, the show seems an interesting psychological experiment. First in trust and deception, then in the old golden vs silver rule of life. When broken down logically, however, it can simply be seen as a fun show where virtually no one will ever take home any money.

Why?

Let's look at the final round: split or steal, and break it down logically.

1) Choose 'split'

a) opponent chooses: split

result: win half the pot

b) opponent chooses: steal

result: win nothing

2) Choose 'steal'

a) opponent chooses: split

result: win all the pot

b) opponent chooses: steal

result: win nothing

From the above, it is easy to see that a contestant's best option is always to choose 'steal', regardless of any real or perceived greed or trust issues. Regardless of which choice one makes, there is a 50/50 chance to take home money. However, with 'steal' you will take home twice as much as with 'split'. Since the odds are the same, but the take is higher, contestants could always be counted on to choose 'steal'. But if all contestants choose steal, no one will ever win money and the show never has to pay out. (thus, if every contestant chose 'split' they would all win, always But since there will always be someone choosing 'steal', so too will everyone else).

The only way one could ever see it changing would be if several contestants made a written agreement, in private, before the show. Or, perhaps in a charity show where all could be expected to choose 'split'.

Unusual Things Married Couples Fight Over #3

or

Before you were married, you never thought you would fight over this

Temperature

Who would have thought something so basic as the temperature could cause such problems. Yet problems does it cause. Doubly so if you are from different parts of the world. While I don't believe all women require the house to be a sauna, it does seem that women require greater warmth, in general, than men. Perhaps owing to their more minimal attire?

Whatever the cause, I still have to try to avoid dehydration while my wife has the fireplace heating and 2 quilts on the bed...in June!