Since Bach Mozart and Beethoven (sp?) were not employed by corporations does that make them amateurs? What do you class as professional and amateur?
The thing about "artist" that you may not remember is that their works dont gain significant value until after they are dead. With some exceptions of course. if you are referring to singers they are a dime a dozen (just watch American idol) and are normally forgotten before death. with a few exceptions. If people dont find value in what you do then you wont get paid for it. Dont demand payment just because you exist.
"But the fact is that in 2000 people didn't look at this in the same light as today"
The labels did. Back in the 70's (I think) they went after people for recording on cassette from other cassettes, records, and radio. thats how personal use first came about I believe. The DMCA (at the behest of the labels) changed that. in 2000 the labels were familiar with alternative formats. Instead of adapting to it, like they did with cassette (and arguably CD), they decided to fight it. What started this whole thing with metallica is that the labels used them to fight napster for them this time. Be it because copyright ownership or not Im not sure but metallica are the ones who pursued it (being pushed by the labels), thus taking the fallout for the labels. I could be mistaken on some of the details but the overall chronology should be accurate.
"I'm sorry you don't get the analogy. In my eyes property is property. Or better put a product is a product"
people understand you ,they just disagree with you.
physical property (house) and intellectual property (music) in digital form are different. if you buy a house its yours. You can repaint, remodel ,resell, even duplicate it(on another lot). With music the artists, and the labels, say that you can do none of that. If you buy a cd you can only play it when where and how they dictate. Anything other than that they will take your physical property (i.e. house). So even they believe that there is a differance.
Thats why I said a sliver of remorse. Personally I think it and a lot of the comments the band was making back then about the people (fans) that were downloading, or copying from their own purchased cds, wasnt in their best interest. because of this I made the decision that I would never buy anything af theirs again. No big deal. One fan lost wont hurt them . right?
two things
1 After you read a response to want to respond to. If you click the "reply to this" link instead of just going to the bottom boxes it would be a lot easier to follow what you have to say. Im just trying to help.
2 Your the one who took it in this direction trying to defend him. dont get me wrong I wasnt criticizing him either. I was just giving my interpretation of what I read out of his statement. I am one of their fans that they lost when they started all of this.
Napster wasn't looking at trying to change a business model. They were looking for a way to exchange music quickly and cheaply over th internet.
Napster was also trying to develop a following so as to sell ad space to make money at it. Similar to the way radio works. thats why the music industry went after them. there were (and are) quite a few things they can do to use the same philosophy to modify there own businesses. But they dont want to eat into their short term profits to ensure long term solvency.
And like with any business, failure to grow, change. move forward, innovate, and the ultimate "Give the people what they want at a price they are willing to pay" will result in the eventual failure of that business. Im not saying that the recording industry will go out of business but their CD making subsidiaries eventually will.
Sorry, distributing music is totally different then building a house. it cost virtually nothing to replicate music as a download which simply cannot be done with a house,
Thats what market research is all about. I can think of a few people who had the foresight and vision to see the possibilities of file shareing back then. The problem was they didnt work for the labels. They were the ones who started Napster, Limewire, and the others (dont need to name them all). maybe instead of trying to sue them out of existence they should have looked into buying them up, or working with them, as a way to distribute music. Heck, I saw that back then and Im not in the industry. Its not rocket science.
"That's something I have to accept, and I accept it," he says. "But it's not something that plays a big part in my life in 2010. I'm proud of the fact that we stood up for what we believed in and took a stance."
I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems as thought hes kinda/sorta admitting that it may not have been the brightest idea. but hes proud that they all made a decision and stuck to it. As misguided as it may have been.
"Were we caught off-guard? Absolutely. Were there some gross underestimation of what this thing was? Yeah. But it came from the same impulsive spirit that drives everything else this band does."
He seems to be saying that they had no clue how big file sharing would become, that this is what the fans would want, the direction that technology was going, and how much their lawsuit would draw a lot more attention to the fact that music could be downloaded. Which, by the way, actually was a big contributor to the growth of file sharing.
In the last sentence he tries to justify their knee-jerk reaction to something that they didnt understand (and didnt try) by saying that its just the way they are.
Its a shame that instead of trying to figure out how to use it to their advantage, they just listened to the labels that only told them how much money they were going to lose on record sales. Not realizing how many fans (and how much money) they would lose in the process. Since money is their main concern, as opposed to making music as they claim, then they should have looked at the bigger picture and realized that there was more money to be had if they would have just given the fans what they wanted.
"It was reported that the exam key was take"
"Which is very different from using a test bank or test sample to study."
The links you provide just lead to the "official" school report/statement. Keep in mind that the school is in damage control mode and is trying to cover its ... They wouldnt want the quality or integrity of its teachers brought into question.
Now with that said, go back and watch the video again. Quinn admits that it was a test bank that was used. The school used the term "exam key" in order to confuse and influence opinion in its favor against the students. Like you said, if an exam key (which I interpret to be "the exact answers and only those answers") was taken, thats a totally different story.
"that is why none of the students challenge the professor."
At the time of the first video, the students are going through the accusation and threat phase. they are being told that if they dont admit guilt within so many days (extremely limited so as not to garner support) there lives and future careers will be forever ruined. That is the aggressive terror tactic used to force submission and redirect attention. So of course they are not going to confront him right there when he is saying if they do, he will destroy their lives. Again, re-watch the first video.
This is going to lead to students who didnt use the test bank to admit their guilt when there was none. Just to protect themselves from this tactic, It will also give the school, and Quinn, higher numbers to quote as proof that they were right. Further convoluting the truth of what is really going on here.
If Quinn would have done his job in the first place, as he states in the second video, none of this would be an issue. But instead he lies to them, only teaches the book, and uses the book publishers questions for the exam. Anyone with common sense could see that because of this, his classes are just "fluff" and to pass his class the only thing you need to learn is whats in the book. Not worth the large sums of money the student are paying.
THIS IS THE TRUTH THE SCHOOL IS TRYING VERY HARD TO HIDE!!!!!
The second video IS their challenge to Quinn and his accusations
"Ethics is about doing the right thing and not about rationalize what you did afterward as being right. So technically under the conditions defined in this posting, the student might not have cheated"
Now you are getting close. The first thing that happened was Quinn lieing about "creating" the test. After a student admitted to using the test bank to study, then Quinn came out to accuse 200 students of cheating. thus redirecting the attention of of himself and onto the students
"blaming the professor is just rationalizing what the students did as being right"
Reverse this statement and you then understand what is really is going on. Who did what first. Did Quinn lie or did the students use the test bank as a study aid (which is the norm and accepted at other schools).
When your hand gets caught in the cookie jar its best to try and shift the blame. If Quinn was actually creating the test himself, as he stated, then the use of a test bank for a study aid would then be viewed as a clever idea and a useful tool.
I dont know about MIke, but you have to look at this chronologically. Quinn states that he has been teaching for 20 yrs and the same way for the last 4 yrs. In the second vid (which came first) He states that he Creates the exams. Well with the issue of cheating being raised its clear that he does not and hasnt for many years. later in the first vid he praises the lab instructors for spending 96 hours to rewrite the exam.
It still seems that hasnt learned that its his job to do this. If he would have been doing his job in the first place and not relying on others to do it for him this may have been avoided. If he would have "created" the test and not copied it,or portions of it, off of a web site (or allowed others to do it for him) then the students wouldnt have had it available for them to use as a "study guide".
If they had to memorize answers to say 200 questions so that they would be able to answer 100 random questions thats studying. if you only have to memorize the exact 100 answers because of knowing which ones are on the test, thats cheating. its also cheating the school, students, and society if you are paid for a service, refuse to perform that service, and redirect blame for your failures when its exposed. Hes been teaching for 20 yrs. He should know better. Then to threaten his students (who are paying him to do a job) in order to cover up his failures and scare them into not questioning him.
This will be a very good lesson for these students when they enter the corporate world. It almost makes me wonder if its not being staged as part of the class. It has many points that need to be learned by todays business students. Some of them are:
A good manager gets others to do their work for them (delegate authority). Quinn even gives credit to the "lab instructors" for rewriting the tests.
When caught doing something ethically questionable, deflect and redirect the accusations towards someone else. Take charge of the situation and try to head the investigation so as to steer it in a direction away from yourself.
Show no weakness. Be strong. Be confident. Be aggressive. use language that takes advantage of the deepest fears of the person you intend to take the blame. Use the loss of support from friends, family, peers and society in general to manipulate them into thinking that they are responsible for committing the most hanus of crimes and could somehow face their perceived ultimate punishment. Then give them an out.
After you have them in fear of losing it all. Show compassion. get them to freely admit their guilt for a lesser punishment. Convince them of how noble a deed it will be to just admit it. That way all blame for any indiscretion on your part is absolved by the admission of guilt on their part.
Its a classic. Thats how corperate works. I dont see the pronlem here.... its just life skills.
AC from posts 101,124 (profile), 6 Feb 2010 @ 2:58pm
Re: Re: Re: yes, you STILL fail...
It basically already has been. the "Industries" just haven't come to grips with it yet. They just keep using the same old ridiculous arguments to justify their existence. I am actually starting to pity them, I wont miss them when they are gone though.
roxanneadams, I beg to differ with you. Amazon and Ebay are bad examples for you to use. They do not actually sell a product. They sell the service of selling a product (Ebay in particular). In fact even they offer FREE shipping for buyers, FREE listings for sellers, and even discounts for buyers to try and entice you to list and or buy. I did say "hopefully get more sales". After all, just because you have something to sell doesn't mean someone else wants it AND for what you are selling it for (even if its free). Getting upset with people for not wanting what you are selling is not going to force them to buy it, or take it if its free. Its called, give the people what they want at a price that they are willing to pay, not build it and they will come. The latter are the business models that are failing and the ones running them doing all the complaining. That is what corporate entitlements are all about. As for your Ebay endeavour, what you perceived as value in a product, or products, evidently wasn't shared by the people you were trying to sell to. Good feedback is only part of the value aspect. DEMAND + VALUE + PRICE = SALE. Without either of the first two...NO SALE...even if free.
On the post: How ACTA Will Increase Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How ACTA Will Increase Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How ACTA Will Increase Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How ACTA Will Increase Copyright Infringement
Re:
The thing about "artist" that you may not remember is that their works dont gain significant value until after they are dead. With some exceptions of course. if you are referring to singers they are a dime a dozen (just watch American idol) and are normally forgotten before death. with a few exceptions. If people dont find value in what you do then you wont get paid for it. Dont demand payment just because you exist.
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re: Re:
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re:
The labels did. Back in the 70's (I think) they went after people for recording on cassette from other cassettes, records, and radio. thats how personal use first came about I believe. The DMCA (at the behest of the labels) changed that. in 2000 the labels were familiar with alternative formats. Instead of adapting to it, like they did with cassette (and arguably CD), they decided to fight it. What started this whole thing with metallica is that the labels used them to fight napster for them this time. Be it because copyright ownership or not Im not sure but metallica are the ones who pursued it (being pushed by the labels), thus taking the fallout for the labels. I could be mistaken on some of the details but the overall chronology should be accurate.
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re:
people understand you ,they just disagree with you.
physical property (house) and intellectual property (music) in digital form are different. if you buy a house its yours. You can repaint, remodel ,resell, even duplicate it(on another lot). With music the artists, and the labels, say that you can do none of that. If you buy a cd you can only play it when where and how they dictate. Anything other than that they will take your physical property (i.e. house). So even they believe that there is a differance.
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re:
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re:
1 After you read a response to want to respond to. If you click the "reply to this" link instead of just going to the bottom boxes it would be a lot easier to follow what you have to say. Im just trying to help.
2 Your the one who took it in this direction trying to defend him. dont get me wrong I wasnt criticizing him either. I was just giving my interpretation of what I read out of his statement. I am one of their fans that they lost when they started all of this.
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re:
Napster was also trying to develop a following so as to sell ad space to make money at it. Similar to the way radio works. thats why the music industry went after them. there were (and are) quite a few things they can do to use the same philosophy to modify there own businesses. But they dont want to eat into their short term profits to ensure long term solvency.
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re:
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re:
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
Re:
On the post: Lars Ulrich: Underestimated File Sharing.. But Proud We Sued
a sliver of remorse?
I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems as thought hes kinda/sorta admitting that it may not have been the brightest idea. but hes proud that they all made a decision and stuck to it. As misguided as it may have been.
"Were we caught off-guard? Absolutely. Were there some gross underestimation of what this thing was? Yeah. But it came from the same impulsive spirit that drives everything else this band does."
He seems to be saying that they had no clue how big file sharing would become, that this is what the fans would want, the direction that technology was going, and how much their lawsuit would draw a lot more attention to the fact that music could be downloaded. Which, by the way, actually was a big contributor to the growth of file sharing.
In the last sentence he tries to justify their knee-jerk reaction to something that they didnt understand (and didnt try) by saying that its just the way they are.
Its a shame that instead of trying to figure out how to use it to their advantage, they just listened to the labels that only told them how much money they were going to lose on record sales. Not realizing how many fans (and how much money) they would lose in the process. Since money is their main concern, as opposed to making music as they claim, then they should have looked at the bigger picture and realized that there was more money to be had if they would have just given the fans what they wanted.
On the post: 200 Students Admit To 'Cheating' On Exam... But Bigger Question Is If It Was Really Cheating Or Studying
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "F" for Ethics 101
"Which is very different from using a test bank or test sample to study."
The links you provide just lead to the "official" school report/statement. Keep in mind that the school is in damage control mode and is trying to cover its ... They wouldnt want the quality or integrity of its teachers brought into question.
Now with that said, go back and watch the video again. Quinn admits that it was a test bank that was used. The school used the term "exam key" in order to confuse and influence opinion in its favor against the students. Like you said, if an exam key (which I interpret to be "the exact answers and only those answers") was taken, thats a totally different story.
"that is why none of the students challenge the professor."
At the time of the first video, the students are going through the accusation and threat phase. they are being told that if they dont admit guilt within so many days (extremely limited so as not to garner support) there lives and future careers will be forever ruined. That is the aggressive terror tactic used to force submission and redirect attention. So of course they are not going to confront him right there when he is saying if they do, he will destroy their lives. Again, re-watch the first video.
This is going to lead to students who didnt use the test bank to admit their guilt when there was none. Just to protect themselves from this tactic, It will also give the school, and Quinn, higher numbers to quote as proof that they were right. Further convoluting the truth of what is really going on here.
If Quinn would have done his job in the first place, as he states in the second video, none of this would be an issue. But instead he lies to them, only teaches the book, and uses the book publishers questions for the exam. Anyone with common sense could see that because of this, his classes are just "fluff" and to pass his class the only thing you need to learn is whats in the book. Not worth the large sums of money the student are paying.
THIS IS THE TRUTH THE SCHOOL IS TRYING VERY HARD TO HIDE!!!!!
The second video IS their challenge to Quinn and his accusations
On the post: 200 Students Admit To 'Cheating' On Exam... But Bigger Question Is If It Was Really Cheating Or Studying
Re: Re: Re: "F" for Ethics 101
Now you are getting close. The first thing that happened was Quinn lieing about "creating" the test. After a student admitted to using the test bank to study, then Quinn came out to accuse 200 students of cheating. thus redirecting the attention of of himself and onto the students
"blaming the professor is just rationalizing what the students did as being right"
Reverse this statement and you then understand what is really is going on. Who did what first. Did Quinn lie or did the students use the test bank as a study aid (which is the norm and accepted at other schools).
When your hand gets caught in the cookie jar its best to try and shift the blame. If Quinn was actually creating the test himself, as he stated, then the use of a test bank for a study aid would then be viewed as a clever idea and a useful tool.
On the post: 200 Students Admit To 'Cheating' On Exam... But Bigger Question Is If It Was Really Cheating Or Studying
Re: "F" for Ethics 101
It still seems that hasnt learned that its his job to do this. If he would have been doing his job in the first place and not relying on others to do it for him this may have been avoided. If he would have "created" the test and not copied it,or portions of it, off of a web site (or allowed others to do it for him) then the students wouldnt have had it available for them to use as a "study guide".
If they had to memorize answers to say 200 questions so that they would be able to answer 100 random questions thats studying. if you only have to memorize the exact 100 answers because of knowing which ones are on the test, thats cheating. its also cheating the school, students, and society if you are paid for a service, refuse to perform that service, and redirect blame for your failures when its exposed. Hes been teaching for 20 yrs. He should know better. Then to threaten his students (who are paying him to do a job) in order to cover up his failures and scare them into not questioning him.
QUINN GETS THE F IN ETHICS.
On the post: 200 Students Admit To 'Cheating' On Exam... But Bigger Question Is If It Was Really Cheating Or Studying
A Good Lesson
A good manager gets others to do their work for them (delegate authority). Quinn even gives credit to the "lab instructors" for rewriting the tests.
When caught doing something ethically questionable, deflect and redirect the accusations towards someone else. Take charge of the situation and try to head the investigation so as to steer it in a direction away from yourself.
Show no weakness. Be strong. Be confident. Be aggressive. use language that takes advantage of the deepest fears of the person you intend to take the blame. Use the loss of support from friends, family, peers and society in general to manipulate them into thinking that they are responsible for committing the most hanus of crimes and could somehow face their perceived ultimate punishment. Then give them an out.
After you have them in fear of losing it all. Show compassion. get them to freely admit their guilt for a lesser punishment. Convince them of how noble a deed it will be to just admit it. That way all blame for any indiscretion on your part is absolved by the admission of guilt on their part.
Its a classic. Thats how corperate works. I dont see the pronlem here.... its just life skills.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: yes, you STILL fail...
On the post: Dean Singleton: Please Explain How Charging For Something Magically Gives It Value
Next >>